Rose v. Rose, 91-3575
| Decision Date | 03 March 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-3575,91-3575 |
| Citation | 615 So.2d 203 |
| Parties | 18 Fla. L. Week. D621 Laura L. ROSE, Appellant, v. Steve ROSE, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Karen A. Gagliano of Karen A. Gagliano, P.A., Boca Raton, for appellant.
Pamela Beckham of Beckham & Beckham, P.A., North Miami Beach, for appellee.
We agree with the wife's assertion that the trial court erred in not awarding her reasonable attorney's fees.
The property settlement agreement provides that "In the event, however, that there is a controversy over the enforcement or interpretation of the provisions of any terms of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys fees as well as court costs and expenses." A reading of the wife's motion for contempt, and the trial court's order clearly shows that the wife prevailed.
Where the contract provides for attorney's fees to be awarded to the prevailing party in litigation arising out of the contract, the trial judge is without discretion to decline to enforce the provision. Jacobson v. Jacobson, 595 So.2d 292 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Witt v. Witt, 568 So.2d 539 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).
The husband's eleventh hour Petition for Modification of his child support and medical expense obligations does not defeat the wife's entitlement to attorney's fees on her motion for his contempt. In this particular case, the husband had an affirmative duty to petition the lower court to modify his support obligations. He cannot be allowed to sit on his laurels, stop honoring his obligations, and force the wife to seek enforcement through contempt and then avoid payment of her fees of which he contractually agreed.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand this case to the trial court to determine, upon hearing, the reasonable attorney's fees due the wife on her motion for contempt, and for the taking of this appeal as the prevailing party under the terms of the property settlement agreement.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mott v. Mott, 2D00-739.
...court is without discretion to decline to enforce that provision. Davids v. Davids, 718 So.2d 1263 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Rose v. Rose, 615 So.2d 203, 204 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Jacobson v. Jacobson, 595 So.2d 292, 294 (Fla. 5th DCA The trial court applied the fee provision contained in the mari......
-
Wrappers v. Courtyard Distribution Ctr., Inc., 4D10–3637.
...fees provision.” Point E. Four Condo. Corp. v. Zevuloni & Assocs., Inc., 50 So.3d 687, 687 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (citing Rose v. Rose, 615 So.2d 203, 204 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)). Animal Wrappers argues that it prevailed because it succeeded on the significant issues in litigation and Courtyard o......
-
Hutchinson v. Hutchinson, 95-4291
...attorney's fees for a prevailing party, the trial judge is without discretion to decline to enforce the provision. Rose v. Rose, 615 So.2d 203 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). The test for determining the prevailing party is to determine which party prevailed on significant issues tried before the cour......
-
Strategic Partners, Inc. v. Vestagen Protective Techs., Inc.
...party on the breach of contract counterclaim, and therefore was entitled to attorneys' fees under the NDA. See Rose v. Rose, 615 So. 2d 203, 204 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993). The district court did not err in denying SPI's post-verdict motions for JMOL and, in the alternative, a new trial. Ev......