General Motors Corp. v. Sanchez, No. 3D08-1769.
Decision Date | 15 July 2009 |
Docket Number | No. 3D08-1769. |
Citation | 16 So.3d 883 |
Parties | GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Luis SANCHEZ, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell and David B. Shelton and Charles P. Mitchell and Steven I. Klein, Orlando, for appellant.
Krohn & Moss and Aaron D. Radbil, for appellee.
Before WELLS and ROTHENBERG, JJ., and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.
A Lemon Law New Motor Vehicle Arbitration Board ruled entirely in Sanchez's favor, determining that his 2005 Chevrolet Equinox was indeed a lemon and ordering General Motors Corporation to give him all he claimed and could receive under the law, including a full reimbursement of the purchase price. See § 681.104(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2008). After General Motors fully complied with that order, Sanchez brought the present, separate proceeding in the circuit court. While he acknowledged that he had been fully reimbursed under the statute and had incurred no "other damages," compare Allison Transmission, Inc. v. J.R. Sailing, Inc., 926 So.2d 404, 408 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) ( ), the action sought only to recover the fees incurred by his attorney—which he was permitted, but not required to represent him before the arbitration board. The trial court entered a judgment awarding those fees, but General Motors appeals and we reverse.
Many "policy" arguments have been advanced on both sides of the present, discrete controversy as to the entitlement of attorneys' fees for the successful representation of a motor vehicle purchaser before the Lemon Law arbitration board. There is no reason, let alone need, to traverse these arguments because, as sound principles of judicial decision-making require, we base our holding on already clearly established principles of law and statutory construction.
It is, of course, well established in Florida, which fully endorses the so-called American Rule on the question, that each party, including the successful one, in litigation must ordinarily bear the burden of his own attorneys' fees. See Trytek v. Gale Indus., Inc., 3 So.3d 1194, 1198 (Fla. 2009); Price v. Tyler, 890 So.2d 246, 250 (Fla.2004); Attorney's Title Ins. Fund, Inc. v. Landa-Posada, 984 So.2d 641, 643 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). Of the narrow exceptions to this doctrine, the only one which even conceivably applies arises when fees are authorized by statute. But, we hold, no such statute applies. Specifically, the plaintiff's entire reliance on section 681.112(1), Florida Statutes (2008), is misplaced. It provides that
[a] consumer may file an action to recover damages caused by a violation of this chapter. The court shall award a consumer who prevails in such action the amount of any pecuniary loss, litigation costs, reasonable attorney's fees, and appropriate equitable relief.
(Emphasis added). But, simply put, the term "damages" does not include attorneys' fees. The square holdings of the Florida Supreme Court in Hubbel v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 758 So.2d 94, 97 (Fla.2000), in which the Court stated: "Generally, the law is clear that attorney's fees are not considered to be a `loss' or damages, and to be recoverable must be expressly provided for by statute, rule, or contract[,]" and in Bidon v. Department of Professional Regulation, 596 So.2d 450, 452 (Fla.1992), where it was said that "the legislature is presumed to have been aware of the case law excluding attorney's fees from the recovery of actual or compensatory damages," leave no doubt as to this proposition. It is therefore clear that the present action which seeks to recover expenses are not "damages," cannot be maintained, and it follows, the second sentence in section 681.112(1), providing for fees in a successful action under that statute cannot apply. Accord In re Dawson, 158 A.D.2d 756, 551 N.Y.S.2d 344 (N.Y.App.Div.1990); Schultz v. Subaru of Am., Inc., 407 Mass. 1004, 553 N.E.2d 893 (1990). But see Chrysler Corp. v. Maiocco, 209 Conn. 579, 552 A.2d 1207 (1989). See also Dade County v. Peña, 664 So.2d 959 (Fla.1995) ( ); cf. § 681.1095(13), Fla. Stat. (2008) ( ). See generally Bob Cohen, Annotation, Award of Attorney's Fees under State Motor Vehicle Warranty Legislation (Lemon Laws), 82 A.L.R. 5th 501, §§ 11, 12 (2000); Mary Dee Pridgen, Consumer Protection and the Law, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
BVS Acquisition Co. v. Brown
...Rule"—that litigants are to ordinarily bear their own attorneys' fees—which Florida "fully endorses." See Gen. Motors Corp. v. Sanchez, 16 So. 3d 883, 884 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009). 6. The On Target Court was reviewing an indemnification provision in a contract for residential leak-detecti......
- S.K. Condo. II Ass'n, Inc. v. NS/CSE Siesta Key, LLC
-
Int'l Fid. Ins. Co. v. Americaribe-Moriarty JV
...litigant has no general entitlement to attorney’s fees. Dade Cty. v. Pena, 664 So.2d 959, 960 (Fla. 1995) ; Gen. Motors Corp. v. Sanchez, 16 So.3d 883, 884 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009) (explaining that it is "well established in Florida, which fully endorses the so-called American Rule on the......
- Regions Bank v. KEL Title Ins. Grp., Inc.
-
The florida deceptive and unfair trade practices act and other florida consumer protection laws
...arbitration proceedings seeking a refund under the Act if the fees are the only element of damages sought. [ General Motors v. Sanchez , 16 So. 3d 883, 884-85 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); Forest River, Inc. v. Gelinas , 65 So. 3d 537, 539 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011); Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Popham , 65 So......