FLORIDA GLASS & MIRROR COMPANY OF ORLANDO, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
ECONOMY KING EQUIPMENT COMPANY ET AL., 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.
The court held that the amended statute allows recovery of attorney's fees for the prevailing party on appeal in mechanic's lien cases.
[1] A statute providing for attorney's fees to the prevailing party in an action to enforce a mechanic's lien, when construed in light of a subsequent statute, permits recove…
[2] A provision in a statute or contract entered into after October 1, 1977, for the payment of attorney's fees to the prevailing party, shall be construed to include attorne…
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 intelligenceThis case involves a mechanic's lien foreclosure where the prevailing party sought attorney's fees on appeal. The relevant statutes were amended after…
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 On Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
ALDERMAN, Chief Judge.
We have considered the issues raised by the appellant and cross-appellant in this mechanic’s lien foreclosure case and find no reversible error. We also grant appellee’s motion for attorney’s fees.
The award of attorney’s fees merits discussion. Section 713.29, Florida Statutes (1975), provides for recovery of attorney’s fees by the prevailing party in any action brought to enforce a mechanic’s lien. The Supreme Court in Sunbeam Enterprises, Inc. v. Upthegrove, 316 So. 2d 34 (Fla.1975), held that Section 713.29 referred only to attorney’s fees at the trial level and did not provide for the allowance of such fees on appeal. Since that time the Legislature has enacted an amended version of Section 59.-46, Florida Statutes, which took effect on October 1, 1977. (Chapter 77-76, Laws of Florida.)
In the absence of an expressed contrary intent, any provision of statute or contract entered into after October 1, 1977, providing for the payment of attorney’s fees to the prevailing party, shall be construed to include the payment of attorney’s fees to the prevailing party on appeal. Section 59.46(1), Florida Statutes (1977)
We conclude that the phrase, “entered into after October 1, 1977,” refers only to contracts and has no bearing on the time of enactment of statutes. We therefore hold that Section 713.29 when construed in the light of Section 59.46 now permits recovery of reasonable attorney’s fees by the prevailing party on appeal.
Because the amended version of Section 59.46 took effect on October 1,1977, and this court’s determination of this appeal occurred after that date, the appellee, as the prevailing party, is entitled to the payment of reasonable attorney’s fees on appeal. The law in effect at the time of appellate disposition is to be applied. Guth v. Guth, 346 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).
Affirmed and remanded to the trial court for the determination and award of reasonable attorney’s fees to appellee as the prevailing party on appeal.
AFFIRMED and REMANDED.
DOWNEY and LETTS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hargitay v. Pipes, 415 So. 2d 753 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Quiring v. Plackard, 412 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). Appellee’s motions for attorney’s fees on appeal is granted in the amount of $1,000. See Florida Glass & Mirror Co. v. Economy King Equipment Co., 353 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); § 59.46, Fla.Stat. (1981).…
-
Charles L. Walker and his wife v. William B. Senn and his wife, 376 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)…Florida Statutes (1977). It is true that case law prior to enactment of the statute prohibited award of attorney’s fees in mortgage foreclosures for services rendered on appeal. See Florida Glass and Mirror Company v. Economy King Equipment Company, 353 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). However, appellants have failed to demonstrate that any significant portion of the award was for appellate services. Appel-lees retained the services of separate counsel for the purpose of handling the appeals, and fees for appe…
-
Univ. Cmty. Hosp. v. Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 492 So. 2d 1339 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…e Company, 220 So. 2d 355 (Fla.1969). HRS, on the other hand, urges that the claim is [*1340] controlled by the statute in its current or amended form and it relies upon Florida Glass and Mirror Company of Orlando, Inc. v. Economy Equipment Company, 353 So. 2d 596 (4th DCA 1977), for the principle that the statute in effect at the time of the appellate court’s disposition of the matter is to be followed. Because of the result expressed in this opinion, we need not pass upon the question of when the current st…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sunbeam Enters., Inc. v. Mr. and Mrs. Walter Upthegrove, 316 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 1975)
- Jewel Guth v. Guth, 346 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)