Baratta v. VALLEY OAK HOMEOWNERS'ASS'N
Decision Date | 19 November 2004 |
Docket Number | No. 2D04-1917.,2D04-1917. |
Citation | 891 So.2d 1063 |
Parties | Thomas C. BARATTA, Jr., Appellant, v. VALLEY OAK HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION AT THE VINEYARDS, INC., a Florida nonprofit corporation, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Thomas C. Baratta, Jr., pro se.
Alfred F. Gal, Jr., of Samouce, Murrell & Gal, P.A., Naples, for Appellee.
Thomas C. Baratta, Jr., appeals an award of attorney's fees that followed the dismissal of his lawsuit against Valley Oak Homeowners' Association at the Vineyards, Inc. (Valley Oak). We affirm the court's finding that Valley Oak was entitled to attorney's fees as the prevailing party in the litigation below. However, we reverse the amount of attorney's fees awarded because the court failed to set forth findings explaining how it reached the amount.
Valley Oak wanted to have black-painted, cast aluminum signposts and matching mailboxes lining the streets of the subdivision. Valley Oak suggested that the new black mailboxes and matching signposts would enhance property values and promote community pride, while the white mailboxes showed dirt easily, appeared to be outdated, lacked "curb appeal," and were not harmonious with the landscape. Baratta, who was perfectly satisfied with his mailbox, filed a complaint for temporary and permanent injunction against Valley Oak1 to prevent it from assessing $460 for the new mailboxes and signposts to each community member without the required vote. Baratta succeeded in getting a temporary injunction against Valley Oak. However, after there had been no record activity for a period of one year, Valley Oak filed its "Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution and to Dissolve Temporary Injunction." In this motion, Valley Oak requested attorney's fees, citing section 718.303, Florida Statutes (2003), and section 11.6 of the "Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Valley Oak at the Vineyards," which provided for attorney's fees for the prevailing party in any legal proceeding.
The court dissolved the temporary injunction and dismissed Baratta's action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(e). Within thirty days, Valley Oak moved for attorney's fees as a prevailing party. The court found that Valley Oak was the prevailing party for purposes of attorney's fees and granted fees in the amount of $6821.25. Baratta appealed the order, disputing both the entitlement and the amount granted.
We find that Valley Oak was entitled to attorney's fees because it was the prevailing party and properly claimed attorney's fees. Chapter 720, Florida Statutes, deals with homeowners' associations. It provides legal redress against the association, members, directors, and officers for failure to comply with statutes, association documents, or community rules. Prevailing parties in the litigation are entitled to recover attorney's fees under section 720.305, Florida Statutes (2002). Valley Oak became the prevailing party when Baratta's claim was dismissed for failure to prosecute.2See Norland v. Villages at Country Creek Master Ass'n, 851 So.2d 770, 771 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
(. )3
Valley Oak, as the prevailing party, properly claimed attorney's fees. It satisfied the requirements of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525 by filing a claim for attorney's fees within thirty days of the circuit court's order dismissing Baratta's action and dissolving the temporary injunction. Valley Oak also satisfied the pleading requirements of Stockman v. Downs, 573 So.2d 835 (Fla.1991), by requesting attorney's fees in its pre-answer motion to dismiss.
As for the amount of fees awarded, the trial court failed to make specific findings as to the hourly rate, the number of hours reasonably expended, and the appropriateness of reduction or enhancement factors as required by Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145, 1151 (Fla.1985). See also Guardianship of Halpert v. Martin S. Rosenbloom, P.A., 698 So.2d 938
(Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (Rowe findings are mandatory). that We therefore find the trial court's "Final Judgment for Attorneys Fees and Costs" fundamentally erroneous on its face.4
Arts, Inc., 869 So.2d 1232 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (citing Giltex Corp. v. Diehl, 583 So.2d 734 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)).
We affirm the trial court's finding that Valley Oak was entitled to attorney's fees. We reverse the amount of attorney's fees awarded and remand for the court to make findings explaining how $6821.25 in fees was reasonable for a case involving a total of thirty minutes in the courtroom and a year of no record activity.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Produce Pay, Inc. v. AgroSale, Inc.
... ... Chase Bank USA NA, 54 ... So.3d 989, 990 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (citing Baratta v ... Valley Oak Homeowners' Assn at the Vineyards, Inc., ... 891 So.2d 1063 (Fla. 2d ... ...
-
Ffrench v. Ffrench
...App. 2010) ; Alhambra Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Asad , 943 So.2d 316 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006) ; and Baratta v. Valley Oak Homeowners' Ass'n , 891 So.2d 1063 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004). The Court finds each of them inapposite.Both Henn and Valcarcel indeed involved dismissals without preju......
-
Esaw v. Esaw
...v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145 (Fla. 1985). This court has followed the reasoning of Giltex. See Baratta v. Valley Oak Homeowners' Ass'n at the Vineyards, Inc., 891 So.2d 1063, 1065-66 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Bayer v. Global Renaissance Arts, Inc., 869 So.2d 1232, 1232 (Fla. 2d DCA We have not, howeve......
-
Harris v. McKinney
...erroneous on its face and that the lack of transcript "does not preclude appellate review." Baratta v. Valley Oak Homeowners' Ass'n at the Vineyards, 891 So.2d 1063, 1065 n. 4 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). Accordingly, we reverse the order awarding attorney's fees and remand for the trial court to ma......
-
Protecting your injunction on appeal in trial court.
...while recognizing an exception for domestic violence injunctions). (11) Baratta v. Valley Oak Homeowner's Ass'n at the Vineyards, Inc., 891 So. 2d 1063, n.2 (Fla. 2d DCA (12) Wilson v. Sandstrom, 317 So. 2d 732, 736 (Fla. 1975); Fox v. Madsen, 12 So. 3d 1261, 1263 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); Trueb......