THE VILLAGE OF KINGS CREEK CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION NOT FOR PROFIT, APPELLANT,
v.
ELLEN GOLDBERG, 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 Village of Kings Creek Condominium Association was not the prevailing party and therefore not entitled to attorney's fees under Florida Statutes Section 718.303(1) because the trial court's compromise solution—allowing the defendant to plant shrubbery instead of requiring removal of the metal screening—favored the defendant's core objective.
A condominium association seeking attorney's fees must be the prevailing party, and where the trial court fashions equitable relief substantially different from what the plaintiff requested and closer to the defendant's central objective, the defendant is the prevailing party.
[1] In determining whether a party is the prevailing party for purposes of attorney's fees under condominium law, the court examines whether the equitable relief granted subs…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the defendant was, in essence, the prevailing party in this controversy, not the plaintiff, as she was allowed to alter her condominium unit to protect herself against the invading ducks and rodents — which was the central issue tried below”
Court's explanation of why the defendant prevailed despite not obtaining everything requested
The Village of Kings Creek Condominium Association sought an injunction requiring defendant Ellen Goldberg to remove metal screening installed on her …
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 Prevailing Party Attorney'S Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We conclude that the plaintiff Village of Kings Creek Condominium Association was not, as urged, the prevailing party in this litigation and therefore was not entitled to an award of attorney’s fees under Section 718.303(1), Florida Statutes (1989); we accordingly affirm the order under review denying such attorney’s fees.
Contrary to the plaintiff’s argument, the equitable relief fashioned by the trial court below was considerably different from that requested by the plaintiff. The plaintiff sought an injunction requiring the defendant Ellen Goldberg to remove a certain metal screening which had been installed on the balcony of the defendant’s condominium balcony to keep out ducks and rodents who were defecating on defendant’s outdoor carpeted terrace. The trial court struck a Solomon-like-compromise solution to this case by allowing the defendant to plant shrubbery and bushes along the defendant’s balcony railing so as to keep out the offending ducks and rodents, thereby making the metal screen unnecessary which was ordered removed. It is therefore clear that the defendant was, in essence, the prevailing party in this controversy, not the plaintiff, as she was allowed to alter her condominium unit to protect herself against the invading ducks and rodents — which was the central issue tried below. See 51 Island Way Condominium Assoc. v. Williams, 458 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), rev. denied, 476 So. 2d 676 (Fla.1985); Martin v. Key Largo Kampground, Inc., 501 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gonzalez v. Int'l Park Condo. I Ass'n, Inc., 217 So. 3d 1128 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…dgment in the Association’s favor is not the metric that determines which side prevails. See Shands Teaching Hosp. & Clinics, Inc., 97 So. 3d at 213 (Fla. 2012). The Owners were more successful. Village of Kings Creek Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. Goldberg, 596 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (finding that association is not prevailing party for fee award where final court order permitted owner to achieve some of his objectives); Martin v. Key Largo Kampground, Inc., 501 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (reversing attorne…
-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 174 So. 3d 622 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…ination was exactly the opposite of that which USAA sought. The issue is whether a party can claim victory when it receives exactly the opposite relief than it requested. The answer is no. See, e.g., Village of Kings Creek Condo. Ass’n v. Goldberg, 596 So. 2d 1195, 1196 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). Throughout the third-party litigation, USAA asserted that Allstate’s umbrella policy came first after the State Farm policy, and USAA’s UM policy came after Allstate. Not once in its pleadings or motion did USAA argue it w…
Authorities Cited
- 51 Island WAY Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Williams, 458 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- State v. Fernandez, 501 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)