VICENTE F. DOMINGUEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
BIENVENIDO M. BENACH, JR., GERALD WILLIAM WEST & ASSOCIATES, JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida appellate court reversed the trial court's denial of attorney fees to the party who successfully defended against a mechanic's lien counterclaim, affirming the dismissal of the underlying contract claims.
A party who successfully resists a mechanic's lien counterclaim is entitled to recover reasonable attorney fees under Florida law.
[1] A party who successfully resists a mechanic's lien counterclaim is entitled to recover reasonable attorney fees under Florida Statute § 713.29.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDominguez sued Benach and West Associates on an architect's contract and asserted a crossclaim. Benach and West filed a counterclaim attempting to ass…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Mechanic'S Lien Foreclosure cases and more on FLexlaw
By this appeal, plaintiff counter-defendant, seeks review of certain portions of an adverse final judgment dismissing his complaint and crossclaim in an action on an architect’s contract and denying a counterclaim which attempted to assert a mechanic’s lien, allegedly supported by an oral agreement.
We find no merit in the points raised by the appellant, save and except that which points out that the trial judge erred in not awarding him attorney fees as the prevailing party in successfully resisting a mechanic’s lien. See: Emery v. International Glass & Mfg., Inc., Fla.App.1971, 249 So. *5682d 496; H. D. McPherson, Inc. v. Metro Electric of Orlando, Inc., Fla.App.1971, 253 So.2d 878; Houdaille-Duval-Wright Company v. Charldon Construction Company, Fla.App.1972, 266 So.2d 106; Potter v. Rowan, Fla.App.1972, 266 So.2d 121; § 713.29, Fla.Stat, F.S.A.
We therefore reverse so much of the final judgment here under review which denied the request for attorney fees by the appellant, as plaintiff in the trial court, and return the cause with directions to the trial judge to receive evidence as to the reasonable fee that should be allowed the plaintiff for successfully resisting the counterclaim seeking to foreclose a mechanic’s lien.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mardan Kitchen Cabinets, Inc. v. Bruns, 312 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…s lien is entitled to recover attorneys fees. A party such as Bruns, who successfully resists an action to enforce a mechanic’s lien is the prevailing party and is entitled to attorneys fees under the statute. See Dominguez v. Benach, Fla.App. 1973, 277 So. 2d 567. Affirmed. . See C. A. Davis, Inc. v. Yell-for-Pennell, Inc., Fla.App.1973, 274 So. 2d 267, 268-269.…
-
Falovitch v. Gunn & Gunn Constr. Co., 348 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…o. 2d 13 (Fla.3d DCA 1967). Section 713.29, Florida Statutes, provides that the prevailing party in an action to enforce a mechanic’s lien is entitled to recover a reasonable fee for the services of his attorney. As was held in Dominguez v. Benach, 277 So. 2d 567 (Fla.3d DCA 1973) and the Mardan Kitchen Cabinets case, supra, a party who successfully resists a claim to enforce a mechanic’s lien is the prevailing party, and that party is therefore entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees. Accordingly, we revers…
-
Winnie v. Buckhalter, 362 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)…g., Charter Development Corp. v. Eversole, 342 So. 2d 143 (Fla.lst DCA 1977); Falovitch v. Gunn & Gunn Construction Co., 348 So. 2d 560 (Fla.3d DCA 1977); Mardan Kitchen Cabinets, Inc. v. Bruns, 312 So. 2d 769 (Fla.3d DCA 1975); Dominguez v. Benach, 277 So. 2d 567 (Fla.3d DCA 1973); H. D. McPherson, Inc. v. Metro Electric of Orlando, Inc., 253 So. 2d 878 (Fla.4th DCA 1971). Contrast, Emery v. International Glass & Mfg. Inc., 249 So. 2d 496 (Fla.2d DCA 1971). However, Winnie is only entitled to attorney’s fees…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- B. Irwin Emery et ux. v. Int'l Glass & MFG., Inc., 249 So. 2d 496 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)
- H. D. McPHERSON, Inc. v. Metro Elec. OF Orlando, Inc., 253 So. 2d 878 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- Houdaille-Duval-Wright Co. v. Charldon Constr. Co., 266 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- Potter v. Rowan, 266 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)