Marshall v. W & L Enterprises Corp., II-305
| Decision Date | 25 July 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. II-305,II-305 |
| Citation | 360 So.2d 1147 |
| Parties | Daniel L. MARSHALL, and Bessie M. Marshall, his wife, Appellant, v. W & L ENTERPRISES CORPORATION d/b/a Aladdin Mobile Homes, Reserve Insurance Company and Dink Walsh, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Rod Tennyson, of Ombres, Powell, Tennyson & St. John, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Benjamin W. Redding, of Barron, Redding, Boggs & Hughes, Panama City, for appellee.
The issue on this appeal is whether the trial court erred in holding that a bonded mobile home dealer's surety was not liable for attorney's fees incurred by appellants in recovering a judgment against the dealer for a violation of the "Little FTC Act," Chapter 501, Part II. We think there was error and reverse.
It is undisputed that the mobile home dealer, Aladdin Mobile Homes, was found to have violated the Act in its dealings with appellants. Reserve Insurance, the surety, contended below however that it could not be liable for appellants' attorney's fees because Section 501.212(5) of the Act provides that the Act does not apply to "any person or activity regulated under laws administered by the department of insurance . . .", and the act of writing bonds was clearly an activity regulated by the Department of Insurance. The trial court apparently accepted this reasoning in excluding Reserve from liability for the appellants' attorney's fees.
Appellants' argument proceeds as follows: (1) Section 320.77, Fla.Stat. (1975) requires mobile home dealers to be licensed and bonded; (2) The bond provisions in Section 320.77(11) protect any retail customer "who shall suffer any loss" as a result of any violation of Chapter 319 or 320; (3) Section 320.77(10) prohibits a mobile home dealer from "violation of any provision of this section or of any other law of this state having to do with dealing in mobile homes . . ."; (4) Chapter 501, Part II and the rules promulgated under it are laws of this state "having to do with dealing in mobile homes"; (5) Aladdin Mobile Homes was found to have violated Chapter 501, Part II; (6) Section 501.210(1) allows the prevailing party in any civil litigation resulting from a violation of the "Little FTC Act" to receive his reasonable attorney's fees and costs from the nonprevailing party; (7) Section 501.210(4) provides that any award of attorney's fees or costs "shall become a part of the judgment and subject to execution as the law allows". Therefore, appellants claim, the attorney's fees which they incurred in prosecuting the action against appellees were part of the "loss" against which they were protected by Reserve's bond.
Reserve, citing Bankers Fire Casualty Insurance Co. v. Newman, 330 So.2d 760 (Fla. 3d D.C.A.1976) and previous cases, maintains that a surety is not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Donald Frederick Evans and Associates, Inc. v. Continental Homes, Inc.
...the Florida statute is to "make consumers whole for losses caused by fraudulent consumer practices." Marshall v. W & L Enterprises Corp., 360 So.2d 1147, 1148 (Fla. 1st Dist.Ct.App.1978). It is intended to protect rights other than those protected by the Copyright Act. We do not agree, howe......
-
S.D.S. Autos, Inc. v. Chrzanowski
...it is too costly and too great a hassle to file suit, and individual enforcement of [FDUTPA] will fail."); Marshall v. W & L Enters. Corp., 360 So.2d 1147, 1148 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) (noting importance of attorney's fees provision in ensuring that FDUTPA's "obvious purpose of ... mak[ing] con......
-
Delgado v. J.W. Courtesy Pontiac GMC-Truck, Inc.
...policy, is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers. In Marshall v. W & L Enterprises Corp., 360 So.2d 1147, 1148 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), the court observed that the obvious purpose of the FDUTPA "is to make consumers whole for losses caused by frau......
-
Dorestin v. Hollywood Imports, INC.
...practices.” LaFerney v. Scott Smith Oldsmobile, Inc., 410 So.2d 534, 536 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) (quoting Marshall v. W & L Enters. Corp., 360 So.2d 1147, 1148 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), disapproved on other grounds, Hubbel v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 758 So.2d 94 (Fla 2000)). Limitation of FDUTPA “act......
-
Consumer protection, debt collection cases
...unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” §501.202(2), Fla. Stat. (2003); see Marshall v. W & L Enters. Corp., 360 So.2d 1147, 1148 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) (the statute’s purpose is to “make consumers whole for losses caused by fraudulent consumer practices”), rev’d on ......