PTS OF GAINESVILLE, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
OLIVETTI CORPORATION OF AMERICA, A CORPORATION, APPELLEE
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.
The court held that attorney's fees expressly promised in a contract are part of the amount in controversy for determining subject matter jurisdiction.
Appellee sued appellant for breach of two equipment sale contracts, alleging amounts due of $1,950 and $1,086.70, plus attorney's fees. Appellant chal…
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 Attorney'S Fees In Amount In Controversy cases and more on FLexlaw
BOYER, Chief Judge.
The trial court entered final summary judgment in favor of appellee, plaintiff below, and denied therein appellant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Appellant’s sole claim on appeal is that the trial court was without subject matter jurisdiction because the allegation of damages in appellee’s amended complaint did not meet the $2,500 jurisdictional amount.
The record indicates that the parties entered into two contracts in April and August of 1973, whereby appellee agreed to sell to appellant certain equipment. Each contract contained a provision for attorney’s fees in the event of default. Appellee filed suit for breach of contract, alleging that appellant owed $1,950 on the April contract and $1,086.70 on the August contract. Appellee demanded appropriate damages, including attorney’s fees.
The $2,500 jurisdictional amount for circuit courts is statutorily required. F.S. Sections 26.012(2)(a) and 34.01(1). Appellee claims that it attained the jurisdictional amount by virtue of its $1,950 amount due on the April contract plus reasonable attorney’s fees. We agree. Attorney’s fees which are expressly promised are as much a part of the amount involved in the suit for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction as are the principal and interest. Ring v. Merchants? Broom Co., 1914, 68 Fla. 515, 67 So. 132. The test for determining jurisdiction of the circuit court is the amount claimed and put into controversy in good faith. Massachusetts Cas. Ins. Co. v. Johansen, Fla. App.3rd, 1971, 270 So. 2d 397. Although the trial court only awarded $400 in attorney’s fees, appellant made no showing that appellee did not in good faith claim attorney’s fees that would bring the larger of the two separate breach of contract claims within the jurisdiction of the circuit court.
AFFIRMED.
RAWLS and McCORD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gant v. Lucy Ho's Bamboo Garden, Inc., 460 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…t filed in good faith. It is well established that the test for determining this jurisdictional question is whether the amount put into controversy by the complaint is claimed in good faith. P.T.S. of Gainesville, Inc. v. Olivetti Corp. of America, 334 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). Even though the trial judge expressed his belief that he would have to overturn any award of damages for $5,000, he did not find — and we conclude the record would not support any finding — that the plaintiff was not acting in g…
-
Landahl v. Smith, 360 So. 2d 162 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)…PER CURIAM. Reversed. See PTS of Gainesville, Inc. v. Olivetti Corporation of America, 334 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). BOARDMAN, A. C. J., and RYDER and DANAHY, JJ., concur.…
-
Becker v. RE/MAX Horizons Realty, Inc., 819 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…ns of section 34.01(l)(c)4. for purposes of determining the jurisdictional amount in controversy. The test for determining jurisdiction is the amount claimed and put into controversy in good faith. PTS of Gainesville, Inc. v. Olivetti Corp. of Am., 334 So. 2d 324, 325 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). The complaint filed by Re/Max put into controversy the amounts due under the promissory note. Ultimately, the court awarded the -principal amount of $14,950 and late fees of $747.50, which together exceed the $15,000 jurisd…
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
- Mass. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Johansen, 270 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- Hira A. Ring v. Merchs. Broom Co., 68 Fla. 515 (Fla. 1914)