Leitman v. Boone, 82-1517
Decision Date | 18 October 1983 |
Docket Number | No. 82-1517,82-1517 |
Citation | 439 So.2d 318 |
Parties | Lorn LEITMAN and John Gentile, Appellants, v. Richard BOONE and Donna Boone, his wife, Appellees. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Kramer & Golden and Richard A. Golden, Miami, for appellants.
No appearance for appellees.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and DANIEL S. PEARSON and FERGUSON, JJ.
Appellants, the plaintiffs below, brought an action for specific performance of a "contract" for the sale of real estate. After a non-jury trial, the trial court denied the plaintiffs relief, finding that the defendants, the putative sellers, had not accepted the plaintiffs' offer to purchase in the manner contemplated by the parties, that is, by executing the deposit receipt form, and thus, no contract to sell the subject real estate existed. See, e.g., Mehler v. Huston, 57 So.2d 836 (Fla.1952). Thereafter, the trial court awarded attorneys' fees to the defendants based on a provision in the deposit receipt form which stated that "[i]n connection with any litigation arising out of this contract, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover all costs incurred, including reasonable attorneys' fees." (emphasis supplied). The plaintiffs appeal solely from the award of attorneys' fees. We reverse.
It is well established that attorneys' fees may not be awarded unless authorized by a contract or, not pertinent here, a statute, or for services performed by an attorney in creating or bringing into the court a fund or other property. See Estate of Hampton v. Fairchild-Florida Construction Co., 341 So.2d 759 (Fla.1976); Kittel v. Kittel, 210 So.2d 1 (Fla.1968); Codomo v. Emanuel, 91 So.2d 653 (Fla.1956); Rader v. Recarey, 352 So.2d 550 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). See also Rivera v. Deauville Hotel, 277 So.2d 265 (Fla.1973); Stone v. Jeffres, 208 So.2d 827 (Fla.1968). In the present case, the defendants' entitlement to fees rested solely on a "contract" which the trial court found was never formed. Since there is no basis to conclude that the attorneys' fee provision was a separable mini-contract enforceable in and of itself, the trial court's finding that no contract was ever formed means that no legal obligations whatsoever were created between the parties, see Brickell Townhouse, Inc. v. Hirschfield, 404 So.2d 153 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), rev. denied, 412 So.2d 466 (Fla.1982); accord, Seafarers' Welfare Plan v. George E. Light Boat Storage, Inc., 402 S.W.2d 231 (Tex.Civ.App.1966); Ellis v. Williams, 312 S.W.2d 97 (Mo.1958); 1 S. Williston, W. Jaeger, Williston on Contracts § 15 (3d ed. 1957), and that an award of attorneys' fees is precluded.
We have not for one moment suggested that the piece of paper in question (the deposit receipt) never existed, had its molecules miraculously rearranged, suddenly disappeared, was physically obliterated, or mysteriously evaporated. What we have said is that a piece of paper which, as here, was found to be a mere offer is not a contract.
" "
Etheredge v. Barkley, 25 Fla. 814, 817, 6 So. 861, 862 (1889) (quoting Story, J., 1 Story, Contracts § 490).
See also Bullock v. Harwick, 158 Fla. 834, 30 So.2d 539 (1947); Webster Lumber Co. v. Lincoln, 94 Fla. 1097, 115 So. 498 (1927).
The trial court's finding in the present case was that the offer made by the plaintiffs was not accepted, that is, no contract was ever formed. 1 It was not, as it might have been, that an agreement had been formed, but such agreement was not enforceable because the statute of frauds had not been satisfied. The trial court's finding is one of fact.
2 R. Anderson, Uniform Commercial Code § 2-201:18 (3d ed. 1982) (footnote omitted).
....
"If ... a party neither had nor signified ... an intention to close the contract until it was fully expressed in a written instrument and attested by signatures, then he will not be bound until the signatures are affixed ...."
Rork v. Las Olas Co., 156 Fla. 510, 518-19, 23 So.2d 839, 843 (1945) (emphasis supplied).
Because the trial court found that there was to be no contract until the written contract was executed, and that finding is supported by substantial competent evidence, we are not free to cavalierly disregard the trial court's finding by saying that the deposit receipt was intended to be a mere memorialization of a prior agreement.
2 A. Corbin, Corbin on Contracts § 279 at 20-21 (1950) (footnotes omitted).
See also Golden v. Golden, 273 Or. 506, 541 P.2d 1397 (1975) ( ); Daugherty v. Kessler, 264 Md. 281, 286 A.2d 95 (1972) ( ).
Next, we do not agree that Brown v. Gardens by The Sea South Condominium Association, 424 So.2d 181 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), and Rustic Village, Inc. v. Friedman, 417 So.2d 305 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), are closely analogous or even apposite to the present case. These cases involved actions brought under Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Section 501.201, et seq., Fla.Stat. (1981). In each the court's holding was that where a plaintiff unsuccessfully brings a claim under the Act, the defendant, as the prevailing party, is to be awarded the statutorily authorized attorneys' fees, notwithstanding that the plaintiff's cause of action is found to be one not covered by the statute.
We have no quarrel with such a holding. The holding, however, represents no more than a judicial construction of a statute and a determination that the Legislature intended that the prevailing party in a consumer protection suit be entitled to attorneys' fees without regard to the basis upon which the party prevails. Thus, by invoking an existing and valid statute which calls for an award of attorneys' fees, one may subject himself to having attorneys' fees assessed against him if he does not prevail. But surely it does not follow that when one unsuccessfully invokes a non-existent contract which calls for an award of attorneys' fees, that attorneys' fees may be awarded against him. Thus, the propriety of the attorneys' fees award in Brown and Rustic Village, Inc. flows from the existence of a valid statute, while the impropriety of the attorneys' fees award here is a consequence of the non-existence of a contract.
Care Construction, Inc. v. Century Convalescent Centers, Inc., 54 Cal.App.3d 701, 126 Cal.Rptr. 761 (1976), relied on in the dissent, sheds light on this distinction. There, even though no binding contract between the parties was found to exist, the prevailing party was said to be entitled to attorneys' fees because--and only because--a California statute was construed to provide for such fees. The statute in question, California Civil Code § 1717, provided:
"In any action on a contract, where such contract specifically provides that attorney's fees costs, which are incurred to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Salazar-Abreu v. Walt Disney Parks & Resorts United States, Inc.
...(Fla. 5th DCA 2014) ); HFC Collection Ctr., Inc. v. Alexander, 190 So.3d 1114, 1117-18 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (quoting Leitman v. Boone, 439 So.2d 318, 322 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) ). Stated differently, Florida's rule is that "[j]udicial estoppel applies when a party in a current proceeding has suc......
-
In re Full Gospel Assembly of Delray Beach
...1047 (Fla.1989); Fabing v. Koch, 941 So.2d 415 (Fla 2nd DCA 2006), or where a contract was fraudulently induced. Leitman v. Boone, 439 So.2d 318 n. 3 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1983). The Debtor has carried its burden and established that this Court incorrectly applied the law in its Order. Consequently......
-
Amisub of Florida, Inc. v. Billington
...of another as a matter of intrastate comity unless there is a very good reason not to do so. Leitman v. Boone, 439 So.2d 318, 324 n. 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (Schwartz, C.J., dissenting); Berek v. Metropolitan Dade County, 396 So.2d 756, 760 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (Schwartz, C.J., dissenting),......
-
Dunne By and Through Dunne v. Somoano
...rev. denied, 518 So.2d 1274 (Fla.1987), where the inconsistent party's initial position was successfully maintained. Leitman v. Boone, 439 So.2d 318 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Grauer v. Occidental Life Ins. Co., 363 So.2d 583 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), cert. denied, 372 So.2d 468 (Fla.1979). See general......
-
Legal theories & defenses
...a party from pleading a position inconsistent with prior contentions.”), rev. denied , 563 So.2d 631 (Fla. 1990). 5. Leitman v. Boone , 439 So.2d 318, 322 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), disagreed with on other grounds by Gibson v. Courtois , 539 So.2d 459 (Fla. 1989). 6. Salcedo v. Asociacion Cubana, ......