R. F. DRIGGERS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
GLORIA P. BAGLI AND GUY V. BAGLI, 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.
R. F. Driggers Construction Company successfully foreclosed a mechanic's lien but was denied attorneys' fees and costs at trial. The appellate court affirmed the foreclosure judgment and reversed the denial of trial-level attorneys' fees, but held that appellate attorneys' fees are not recoverable in mechanic's lien actions.
The prevailing party in a mechanic's lien foreclosure action is entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees for services rendered in the trial court under Fla.Stat. § 713.29, regardless of whether the amount recovered is less than sought. However, appellate attorneys' fees are not recoverable in mechanic's lien actions because the applicable statute does not specifically provide for them. The trial court had discretion to deny costs in a proceeding formally cognizable in chancery.
[1] A party who successfully prosecutes a mechanic's lien foreclosure is entitled to attorneys' fees as the "prevailing party" under Fla.Stat. …
[2] A trial court has discretion to deny costs in a mechanic's lien foreclosure proceeding.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Even though appellant sought to recover more than the amount of its judgment, appellant was still entitled to attorneys' fees as the "prevailing party" under Fla.Stat. § 713.29.”
Establishes that prevailing party status for attorneys' fees entitlement is not diminished by seeking an amount greater than the judgment recovered.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceR. F. Driggers Construction Company filed a mechanic's lien foreclosure action against Gloria P. Bagli and Guy V. Bagli. The trial court found that ap…
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 Appellate Attorney'S Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIMES, Judge.
Appellant complains of the denial of attorneys’ fees and costs despite its successful prosecution of a mechanic’s lien foreclosure. Appellees attack the judgment of foreclosure on cross-appeal by contending that appellant failed to furnish the affidavit required by Fla.Stat. § 713.-06(3) (d)l. The trial court held that the appellant had complied with the statute, and the record is sufficient to support this conclusion. Even though appellant sought to recover more than the amount of its judgment, appellant was still entitled to attorneys’ fees as the “prevailing party” under Fla.Stat. § 713.29. Foxbilt Electric, Inc. v. Belefant, Fla.App. 4th, 1973, 280 So. 2d 28; Sharpe v. Ceco Corporation, Fla.App. 3rd, 1970, 242 So. 2d 464. The court was within its discretion to deny costs in this proceeding formally cognizable in chancery. Flagala Corporation v. Hamm, Fla.App. 1st, 1974, 302 So. 2d 195.
Appellant cannot recover attorneys’ fees for successfully prosecuting and defending this appeal. The recent case of Ohio Rlty. Inv. Corp. v. Southern Bk. of W. Palm Beach, Fla.1974, 300 So. 2d 679, lends support to this court’s previous holding that appellate attorneys’ fees are not recoverable in mechanic’s lien actions because the applicable statute does not specifically provide for them. Babe’s Plumbing, Inc. v. Maier, Fla.App. 2d, 1966, 194 So. 2d 666; accord, John T. Wood Homes, Inc. v. Air Control Products, Inc., Fla.App. 1st, 1965, 177 So. 2d 709; contra, Foxbilt Electric, Inc. v. Belefant, supra.
The judgment is affirmed, but the cause is remanded with directions to award appellant reasonable attorneys’ fees for services in the trial court.
BOARDMAN, A. C. J., and SCHEB, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Peter Marich & Assocs., Inc. v. Powell, 365 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)…ng we think the court erred. A prevailing party is one in whose favor an affirmative judgment is rendered. This is true despite the fact that the judgment is for less than initially sought in the complaint. R. F. Driggers Construction Co. v. Bagli, 313 So. 2d 450 (Fla.2d DCA 1975); Foxbilt Electric, Inc. v. Belefant, 280 So. 2d 28 (Fla.4th DCA 1973); Sharpe v. Ceco Corp., 242 So. 2d 464 (Fla.3d DCA 1970). Therefore, appellant was entitled to a reasonable attorney’s fee even though it did not recover the enti…
-
Sanfilippo v. Larry Giacin Tile Co., Inc., 390 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)…t. We held that an award of attorney’s fees for services in connection with an appeal was appropriate under the statute. Foxbilt Electric, Inc. v. Belefant, supra. The Second District Court of Appeal, in R. F. Driggers Construction Company v. Bagli, 313 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975) and the First District Court of Appeal, in John T. Wood Homes, Inc. v. Air Control Products, Inc., 177 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965) developed a contrary line of authority. This conflict has been put to rest by the amendment whic…
-
Malagon v. Solari, 566 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…Mitchell, 491 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); American Insulation of Fort Walton Beach, Inc. v. Pruitt, 378 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Peter Marich & Assocs., Inc. v. Powell, 365 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); R.F. Driggers Const. Co. v. Bagli, 313 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). Further, in Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 1939, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983), the Supreme Court held that plaintiffs in civil rights actions may be considered “prevailing parties for attorney’s fee purposes if…
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
- Sharpe v. Ceco Corp., 242 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)
- Ohio Realty Inv. Corp. v. S. Bank OF W. Palm Beach, 300 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 1974)
- Babe's Plumbing, Inc. v. Emil P. Maier and Hildegarde M. Maier, 194 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)
- John T. Wood Homes, Inc. v. AIR Control Prods., Inc., 177 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)
- Flagala Corp. v. Hamm, 302 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Foxbilt Elec., Inc. v. Belefant, 280 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)