Fortenberry Professional Bldg. v. Zecman
| Decision Date | 20 June 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 90-1932,90-1932 |
| Parties | FORTENBERRY PROFESSIONAL BUILDING, et al., Appellants, v. Charles ZECMAN, et al., Appellees. 581 So.2d 972, 16 Fla. L. Week. D1652 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
John L. Soileau of Westman, Lintz, Watson, Thompson and Soileau, P.A., Cocoa, for appellants.
R. Edward Cooley of Shepherd, McCabe & Cooley, Longwood, for appellees.
Appellant, a condominium association, filed an action against appellees, as unit owners, to foreclose a special assessment lien. The declaration provides that the delinquent unit owners shall pay all costs including reasonable attorneys fees in any action by the Association to foreclose a lien. 1 The assessment lien was foreclosed but the trial judge did not allow the Association attorney's fees because the unit owners prevailed on a counterclaim for damages relating to the destruction of a canopy in which they had a special property right. The Association appeals the order denying it attorney's fees. We reverse.
Courts have no discretion to decline to enforce contract provisions for awards of attorney's fees. Sybert v. Combs, 555 So.2d 1313 (Fla.5th DCA 1990); Golden Cleaver Packing, Inc. v. G. & M. Hughes Corp., 490 So.2d 1381, 1383, n. 3 (Fla.5th DCA 1986). The Association prevailed in its lien foreclosure action although it did not make a net recovery after offset because the unit owners' recovery on their counterclaim was greater than the Association's lien. However, the fact that an offset results does not eliminate the contractual right to attorney's fees in the lien foreclosure action.
In so far as the final judgment denies the Association attorney's fees and costs, we reverse and remand for the court to award the appellant Association reasonable attorney's fees and costs.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
1 See also section 718.116(4)(a), Florida Statutes.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baker Protective Services v. FP Inc.
...awards of attorney's fees." Remarc Homes, Inc. v. Kumar, 616 So.2d 498, 499 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); accord Fortenberry Professional Bldg. v. Zecman, 581 So.2d 972 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Sybert v. Combs, 555 So.2d 1313 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). Since the provision involved clearly and unambiguously pu......
-
Remarc Homes, Inc. v. Kumar
...found Remarc to be the prevailing party in this action, the court erred in denying attorney's fees. Fortenberry Professional Bldg. v. Zecman, 581 So.2d 972, 973 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Sybert v. Combs, 555 So.2d 1313 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Golden Cleaver Packing, Inc. v. G & M Hughes Corp., 490 ......
-
Jacobson v. Jacobson, 91-1380
...for an award of prevailing party attorney's fees any more than any other valid contractual provision. Fortenberry Professional Building v. Zecman, 581 So.2d 972 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Sybert v. Combs, 555 So.2d 1313 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Hancock v. Hancock, 417 So.2d 1046 (Fla. 4th DCA Accordi......
-
Hanover Ins. Co. v. Anova Food, LLC
...and unambiguous terms of the contract controlled the award ofattorneys' fees to the insured); see Fortenberry Professional Bldg. v. Zecman, 581 So.2d 972, 973 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991). The Hanover Companies' Litigation Guidelines contained a section on Billing. The Billing section set for......