ROSE THALLER, APPELLANT,
v.
WATERFORD POINT CONDOMINIUM APARTMENTS, INC., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the appellee was the prevailing party in the underlying appeal, not the appellant.
The appellant sought reversal of a foreclosure judgment, and while the appellate court affirmed most of the trial court's decision, it modified the am…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Final Judgment Of Foreclosure cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellee, Waterford Point Condominium Apartments, Inc., seeks review of this court’s order dated August 25, 1982 granting appellant’s motion for attorney’s fees, pursuant to Rule 9.400(c), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Appellee also seeks review of the trial court’s order assessing attorney’s fees and taxing costs. We have jurisdiction. See, State v. LoChiatto, 381 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979).
Appellee contends that we must consider it as the prevailing party in the underlying appeal and that no basis exists for our award of attorney’s fees to appellant. The appellant sought reversal of the trial court’s final judgment of foreclosure of a lien for nonpayment of a special assessment, Thaller v. Waterford Point Condominium Apartments, Inc., 421 So. 2d 167 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). Although she raised numerous points on appeal, we affirmed the trial court on all points with the exception of its computation of the amount of principal and interest due appellee. Although our decision resulted in some economic benefit to the appellant, we must agree with appellee that it was the prevailing party in this appeal.
Therefore, we vacate our previous order dated August 25, 1982 awarding fees to appellant and quash the trial court’s order entered pursuant to our direction on February 8th, 1983 assessing fees and costs in favor of appellant. Our order dated August 25, 1982 denying appellee attorney’s fees on appeal remains unchanged.
DOWNEY and DELL, JJ., and SCHWARTZ, ALAN R., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Hooks, 463 So. 2d 468 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…prevailing party” within the meaning of Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.400(a). Dept. of Labor & Employment Security v. Am. Bldg. Main., 449 So. 2d 932, 933 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); see also Thaller v. Waterford Point Condominium Apartments, Inc., 437 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). The portions of the judgment awarding punitive damages to Hooks, and awarding compensatory and punitive damages to Var Heyl, are reversed and set aside. The award of attorney’s fees to Hooks and Var Heyl is affirmed, except as…
-
Yi Lin Zhang v. D.B.R. Asset Mgmt., Inc., 878 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…some economic benefit as a result of litigation, does not necessarily mean that party has succeeded on the major issue in the case. See Zaremba Florida Co. v. Klinger, 550 So. 2d 1131 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Thaller v. Waterford Condo. Apartments, Inc., 437 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). Moreover, “an attorney’s fee award is not required each time there is litigation involving a contract providing for prevailing attorney’s fees.” KCIN, Inc. v. Canpro Inv., Ltd., 675 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). A trial court…
-
Clixby v. Moore (15th Cir. Ct. App. Div. 2003)…, 606 So. 2d at 1776, that "in a breach of contract action, one party must prevail," but contends that "[t]his single sentence, standing alone, is in direct conflict with the Fourth District's holding in Thaller [v. Waterford Condo Apartments, Inc., 437 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)]." However, in Thaller, which involved foreclosure of a lien in favor of a condominium association for nonpayment of a special assessment, the Fourth DCA noted that, although the unit owner [appellant] raised numerous points on a…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- State v. LoCHIATTO, 381 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)
- Wright v. State, 421 So. 2d 167 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)