ISRAEL PEREZ, APPELLANT,
v.
MEMORIAL SALES, INC., ET AL., APPELLEES

Fla. 3d DCA | 1995-05-24
No. 94-1947
Before NESBITT, BASKIN and GERSTEN, JJ.
655 So. 2d 193 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1995)

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.


Holding

A plaintiff who prevails on a breach of contract claim is a prevailing party for purposes of section 57.105, Florida Statutes, and is entitled to attorney's fees.


Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiff purchased a grave site and monument but his mother was buried in a different location, requiring disinterment and reinterment at his expense…

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.


Opinion of the Court
NESBITT, Judge.

NESBITT, Judge.

A prevailing plaintiff appeals from an order denying a motion for attorney’s fees, made and presented to the trial court pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1993), which essentially allows mutuality of attorney’s fees in contract cases. See County Waste, Inc. v. Public Storage Mgt., Inc., 582 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).

Perez purchased a grave site and monument for his mother’s burial from Memorial. The contract plainly provided for a specific location for a grave for plaintiffs mother. Her body, however, was in fact buried in a plot some twenty feet distant from that purchased. The plaintiff was required at his own expense to cause disinterment and rein-terment of his mother’s body. He then brought this action against Memorial sounding both in negligence and contract. At trial, the plaintiff prevailed on the negligence count by a directed verdict. The damages on that issue together with the issue remaining with respect to liability and damage as to the contract count were submitted to a jury and resulted in an undifferentiated verdict in the sum of $30,000.

In this case, the issues with respect to the alternative theories of recovery were essentially the same. Because the plaintiff prevailed and recovered damages on the substantive issue of breach of contract, he is, in essence, a “prevailing” party for purposes of applying section 57.105(2).

The order denying the attorney’s fees is reversed and remanded for further proceedings.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw