Foley v. Fleet, 94-1993
| Decision Date | 05 April 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-1993,94-1993 |
| Citation | 652 So.2d 962 |
| Parties | 20 Fla. L. Weekly D821 Steven Louis FOLEY, Petitioner, v. The Honorable J. Leonard FLEET, Circuit Judge of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit Court, in and for Broward County, Florida, et al., Respondent. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Colleen M. Crandall of Colleen M. Crandall, P.A., Boca Raton, for petitioner.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles M. Fahlbusch, Asst. Atty. Gen., Hollywood, for respondent--The Honorable J. Leonard Fleet.
Nancy W. Gregoire, Joel L. Kirschbaum, and Teri L. Di Giulan of Ruden, Barnett, McClosky, Smith, Schuster & Russell, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for respondent--Robin Kert Foley.
After denying the former husband's petition for writ of prohibition in a modification proceeding, this court granted the former wife's motion for attorney's fees "contingent upon respondent being the prevailing party" within the meaning of the parties' property settlement agreement. The trial court thereupon awarded her attorney's fees solely as a result of her prevailing on the prohibition, and former husband seeks review of that order by motion filed under Fla.R.App.P. 9.400(c). We reverse.
In their agreement the parties provided:
In the event either party seeks Court intervention for the purposes of modifying or enforcing any part of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to an award of a reasonable attorney's fee and costs arising out the lawsuit to enforce or modify, whether the same be incurred in the trial court, in post judgment proceedings, mediation or in any appellate court.
The sole issue we are called upon to decide, which is whether former wife is a prevailing party within the meaning of the agreement, was answered in Moritz v. Hoyt Enterprises, Inc., 604 So.2d 807, 810 (Fla.1992):
[T]he party prevailing on the significant issues in the litigation is the party that should be considered the prevailing party for attorney's fees.
The fact that the wife prevailed in this court on the husband's petition for writ of prohibition, in which she sought the recusal of the trial judge, does not make her the prevailing party in the litigation. She merely prevailed on one aspect of the proceeding which did not involve the merits. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. de la Fe, 647 So.2d 965 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). Normally, unless there are separate and distinct claims which would support independent actions, there will only be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stringer v. Katzell
...fees under rule 9.400(b), which must await the determination of the ultimate prevailing party in the litigation. See Foley v. Fleet, 652 So.2d 962 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Cline v. Gouge, 537 So.2d 625 (Fla. 4th DCA The motion for review is denied and the orders of the trial court are affirmed.......
-
H Greg Auto Pompano, Inc. v. Raskin
...a motion in the appellate court under rule 9.400(b), stating the legal basis for the claim.") (citation omitted); Foley v. Fleet, 652 So. 2d 962, 963 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) ("While it seems anomalous to require a motion for prevailing party attorney's fees to be filed or considered in an inter......
-
Fla. Dep't of Agric. & Consumer Servs. & the Fla. Comm'r of Agric. v. Bogorff
...from the appellate court, a trial court has no authority to assess attorney's fees on appeal.3See, e.g., Foley v. Fleet, 652 So.2d 962, 963–64 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). Counsel should have sought fees in Patchen II in the supreme court. We therefore reverse for the trial court to delete from the......
-
Concept, L.C. v. Gesten, s. 93-2041
...is granted provisionally conditioned upon appellants ultimately being the prevailing party in this litigation. See, Foley v. Fleet, 652 So.2d 962 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). ORDERED that appellees' motion for rehearing on order denying appellees' motion for appellate attorneys' fees is ORDERED tha......