Pappert v. Mobilinium Associates V., s. 85-879
| Decision Date | 16 September 1987 |
| Docket Number | 85-2325,Nos. 85-879,s. 85-879 |
| Citation | 512 So.2d 1096,12 Fla. L. Weekly 2265 |
| Parties | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2265 Donald PAPPERT, Sarah Patten, Gordon Fletcher, Frederick Libby, Armand & Jean Grassi, James G. Jackson, et al., Appellants/Cross Appellees, v. MOBILINIUM ASSOCIATES V., a California Limited Partnership; McDay Corporation, a California Corporation doing business in Florida; and Mobile Home Park Associates, a California Limited Partnership, etc., Appellees/Cross Appellants. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
John T. Allen, Jr., Neil E. Polster and Christopher P. Jayson of John T. Allen, Jr., P.A., St. Petersburg, and Joanna R. Martin of Harris & Martin, Stuart, for appellants/cross appellees.
Robert C. Grady of Katz, Barron, Squitero & Faust, Miami; Daniel H. Jones of Jones, Bergin & Culler; and Larry Klein of Klein & Beranek, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellees/cross appellants.
We sua sponte consolidate these appeals from a final judgment and a subsequent order taxing attorneys' fees and costs. We affirm the final judgment but reverse the award of attorneys' fees and costs.
The appellants, residents of a mobile home park owned and operated by the appellees, brought an action for injunctive relief and damages against appellees alleging numerous violations of Chapter 723, Florida Statutes (1984), including section 723.022(2), which provides:
The mobile home park owner shall at all times:
(a) Comply with the requirements of applicable building, housing, and health codes.
(b) Maintain buildings and improvements in common areas in a good state of repair and maintenance and maintain the common areas in a good state of appearance, safety and cleanliness.
(c) Provide access to the common areas, including buildings and improvements thereto, at all reasonable times for the benefit of the park residents.
(d) Maintain utility connections and systems in reasonably usable condition.
The action alleged violations concerning the park's roadways, swimming and wading pools, drainage ditches, laundry rooms, clubhouse, playground, teen center, and other areas of the park. The action also claimed that the rent being charged was unconscionable and that the appellees had unlawfully changed the park from a family facility to an adult-only facility. The action for unconscionable rent was dismissed with prejudice after an evidentiary hearing and in advance of trial on the other claims.
After trial the court found no improper conduct by the appellees in changing a part of the park to adults-only. In addition, while finding evidence of virtually all the section 723.022 violations alleged, the trial court awarded damages only for violations concerning the swimming and wading pools. The court found that the evidence as to the other violations was insufficient to reflect that they existed long enough to seriously affect the homeowners living in the park. The court also found that there was insufficient evidence presented by appellants of damages sustained by the homeowners as to these violations, as contrasted to specific evidence presented of the cost to the homeowners to use another swimming facility for the time in question. The court awarded damages of $18,860.00 to the homeowners. Subsequently, however, the court taxed attorneys' fees and costs against the homeowners in the total amount of $46,278.21. The homeowners are appellants in both cases, while appellees challenge the damage award against them by cross appeal.
In the appeal from the final judgment we affirm both the award of damages for the loss of swimming facilities and the denial of damages on the other violations. We agree with appellants, and the trial court acknowledged, that there was evidence, in some instances undisputed evidence, that other violations took place. However, we hold that the trial court, as the trier of fact, did not err in determining that no damages should be awarded because of the lack of proof as to the duration of the violations or as to specific damages caused by such violations.
We reverse the award of attorneys' fees and costs. First, we do so because of a jurisdictional problem: The court entered the order taxing costs and attorneys' fees at a time outside of the time this court specifically provided in an order relinquishing jurisdiction for that purpose. In the interest of judicial economy, however, we also reverse on the merits and hold that the trial court erred in taxing fees against the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Department of Transp. v. Weisenfeld
...success 11 has been followed in Florida. See Malagon v. Solari, 566 So.2d 352 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Pappert v. Mobilinium Associates V., 512 So.2d 1096 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). In Malagon, the fourth district cites to the ruling in Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 4......
-
River Bridge Corp. v. American Somax Ventures
...the hours spent on the unsuccessful claim should be excluded in considering the amount of a reasonable fee. Pappert v. Mobilinium Assocs. V., 512 So.2d 1096, 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). Where the plaintiff achieved only limited success, the trial court should award only that amount of fees th......
-
Malagon v. Solari
...1151 (Fla.1985), modified on other grounds, Standard Guar. Ins. Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So.2d 828 (Fla.1990). In Pappert v. Mobilinium Assocs. V., 512 So.2d 1096 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), this court relied on Hensley in its holding that the extent of success by the prevailing plaintiffs should be ......
-
Vander Voort v. International Development & Holding Corp., 91-00350
...of the statutory duties of a mobile home park owner exists apart from a claim for unconscionable rent. Pappert v. Mobilinium Associates V, 512 So.2d 1096 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). The petitioners have a right to jury trial on their claim for damages in the second count of their second amended co......