Magee v. Bishop Signs, Inc.
Decision Date | 07 November 1984 |
Docket Number | 83-2687,Nos. 83-284,s. 83-284 |
Citation | 458 So.2d 1174 |
Parties | Peter MAGEE, John Mahon d/b/a P.J. Cavanaugh's Restaurant, Cross Appellants, v. BISHOP SIGNS, INC., Cross Appellee. BISHOP SIGNS, INC., Appellant, v. Peter MAGEE, John Mahon d/b/a P.J. Cavanaugh's Restaurant, Appellees. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Stephen F. Radford, Jr., of Cibula, Gaunt & Pratt, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Harvey Kaufman and Timothy H. Kenney of Kenney, Boswell & Kaufman, West Palm Beach, for appellees.
Appellant, Bishop Signs, Inc., (Bishop) filed a one count complaint to foreclose a mechanic's lien. Appellees, Magee and Mahon (Magee), as owners of the property filed an answer and counterclaim, which among other things contended that the lien slandered appellees' title, it was exaggerated and fraudulent, and the work was deficient. Well over a year after suit was commenced Magee moved to dismiss the amended complaint because the claim of lien was unsigned and the complaint failed to allege Bishop had furnished a contractor's affidavit as required by section 713.06(3)(d)(1). Judgment was entered 1) dismissing the complaint with prejudice for failure to plead the furnishing of the contractor's affidavit, 2) denying the motion to dismiss on the ground the claim of lien was unsigned, 3) discharging the lien and lis pendens, and 4) reserving jurisdiction to award attorney's fees and costs in connection with the discharge of the lien. Bishop appealed the judgment in Case No. 83-284 and Magee cross appealed, the latter claiming error in not dismissing the complaint based on the ground the lien claim was unsigned. This court dismissed the appeal because the counterclaim involving the same subject matter was still pending. We should have dismissed the cross appeal also because it seeks review of a non-appealable order and is not cognizable without the pendency of the main appeal.
While Case No. 83-284 was pending on the cross appeal Magee obtained a judgment in the trial court awarding the owners attorney's fees of $5,000 based upon a finding that Magee was the prevailing party within the meaning of section 713.29, Florida Statutes (1981). Bishop has appealed that judgment in Case No. 83-2687.
With regard to the judgment for attorney's fees, the award thereof is appropriate if Magee is the prevailing party. Bishop sued in one count to foreclose a mechanic's lien. It did not seek damages for...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Presperi v. Code, Inc.
...Corp., 513 So.2d 750 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Plaza Builders, Inc. v. Regis, 502 So.2d 918 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Magee v. Bishop Signs, Inc., 458 So.2d 1174 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Schabert v. Montaltos, 445 So.2d 1136 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); General Dev. Corp. v. John H. Gossett Constr. Co., 370 So.2d ......
-
Wen-Dic Const. Co., Inc. v. Mainlands Const. Co., Inc.
...that a party must establish a meritorious claim and actually obtain a judgment rendered in his favor. See Magee v. Bishop Signs, Inc., 458 So.2d 1174 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). If the majority's decision on this point were followed to its logical conclusion, it could have the effect of awarding f......
-
General Acc. Ins. Co. v. Packal
...So.2d 1369 (Fla.1986); Publix Super Markets, Inc. v. Cheesbro Roofing, Inc., 502 So.2d 484 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Magee v. Bishop Signs, Inc., 458 So.2d 1174 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Steinhardt v. Eastern Shores White House Association, Inc., 413 So.2d 785 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). Therefore, in the pr......
-
Aksomitas v. Maharaj
...So.2d 1369 (Fla.1986); Publix Super Markets, Inc. v. Cheesbro Roofing, Inc., 502 So.2d 484 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Magee v. Bishop Signs, Inc., 458 So.2d 1174 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Steinhardt v. Eastern Shores White House Ass'n, 413 So.2d 785 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). Those cases did not involve the ......
-
Attorneys' fees on appeal: basic rules and new requirements.
...1997); Publix Super Markets, Inc. v. Cheesbro Roofing, Inc., 502 So. 2d 484, 488 (Fla. 5th D.C.A. 1987); Magee v. Bishop Signs, Inc., 458 So. 2d 1174, 1175 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1984). Cf. Green Cos., Inc. v. Kendall Racquetball Inv., Ltd., 658 So. 2d 1119, 1121 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1995) (in a proce......