ELISE C. ROBERTSON, APPELLANT,
v.
FORREST COBB AND SYLVIA O. COBB, AS TRUSTEE, APPELLEES
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.
Robertson appeals a judgment finding her unrecorded equitable lien inferior to a recorded mortgage and seeking reversal of awarded attorney's fees to the mortgagee. The court affirmed, holding that the mortgagee had no actual or constructive notice of Robertson's lien, making it junior to the mortgage, and that attorney's fees were properly awarded even though one attorney was provided by the title insurer.
The court held that Robertson's unrecorded equitable lien was inferior to the mortgagee's recorded mortgage because the mortgagee had neither actual nor constructive notice of Robertson's lien. The court also held that attorney's fees were properly awarded to the mortgagee, applying the principle that an insurance carrier obligated to defend its insured and pay for the defense is entitled to cost recovery despite not being a direct party to the action.
[1] An unrecorded equitable lien is inferior to a subsequently recorded mortgage when the mortgagee has neither actual nor constructive notice of the unrecorded lien.
[2] An insurance company that defends its insured and pays costs and expenses of a lawsuit as required by its contract of insurance may recover those costs, even if the insur…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Robertson's hen was created when she paid a deposit to a contraetor/owner for a residence that was under construction”
Establishes the facts of how Robertson's equitable lien arose
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobertson paid a deposit to a contractor/owner for a residence under construction, creating an equitable lien. A mortgagee subsequently recorded a mor…
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 Appeal Of Attorney'S Fees Award cases and more on FLexlaw
PETERSON, Chief Judge.
Elise C. Robertson appeals a final judgment that found her unrecorded equitable lien to be inferior to the lien of a subsequent recorded mortgage. Robertson’s hen was created when she paid a deposit to a contraetor/owner for a residence that was under construction. We affirm the ruling of the trial court that Robertson’s hen was inferior to that of the mortgagee’s based on the unrefuted evidence that the mortgagee had neither actual nor constructive notice of Robertson’s hen. See Sirkin v. Schupler, 90 Fla. 68, 105 So. 151 (1925).
Robertson also appeals the award of the mortgagee’s attorney’s fees. One of the two attorneys representing the mortgagee was furnished by the mortgagee’s title insurer that was obhgated to defend the mortgagee’s interest when Robertson made the claim that she was entitled to priority. The trial court specifically avoided awarding fees for any duphcity of services by the two attorneys. Robertson argues that since the mortgagee was not obhgated to pay the fees of the title insurer’s attorney, none should be awarded. Indeed, there is some basis for the argument under Lafferty v. Tennant, 528 So. 2d 1307 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), in which the second district found the trial court in error for awarding fees because the insurance company was not a party to the action. This court disagreed with that rationale in Hough v. Huffman, 555 So. 2d 942 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990).
The issue in Hough was whether a liability insurance carrier, who was a non-party but obhgated to defend its insured, should be entitled to an award of costs for an action arising from an automobile accident. The insurance carrier’s insured prevailed as to liability, and costs were awarded against the plaintiff. Recognizing that the insurance carrier paid the costs that were awarded against the plaintiff, the plaintiff appealed, arguing that the carrier was not a party to the action and could not recover its costs. This court rejected the argument, finding that:
The cases from our sister courts which deny costs in such a context, we submit, are flawed because they do not take into consideration the contract relationship between an insurer and its insured, and the resulting subrogation rights of an insurance company which defends its insured and pays costs and expenses of a lawsuit as required by its contract of insurance.
Id. at 944. The supreme court resolved the conflict by approving Hough in Aspen v. Bayless, 564 So. 2d 1081 (Fla.1990). Although costs rather than attorney’s fees were in issue in both Hough and Aspen, the principles are the same.
The judgment is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
W. SHARP and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Oceana Star Allen and William Scott Allen v. Helms, 293 So. 3d 572 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020)…attempt to keep costs and expenses awarded. Aspen v. Bayless, 564 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 1990). An insurer which defends its insured and pays costs and expenses of a lawsuit is subrogated to the extent of those payments. [Id.] at 1082; Robertson v. Cobb, 695 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). Accordingly, “the insurance carrier . . . is ‘the real party in interest’” to recover fees under section 768.79 “because it controls the defense’s litigation strategy and holds the purse strings.” Sparks v. Barnes, 755 So. 2d 71…
Authorities Cited
- Aspen v. Bayless, 564 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 1990)
- Arland Wayne Lafferty and Peggy Jo Lafferty v. Tennant, 528 So. 2d 1307 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Smith v. State, 555 So. 2d 942 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- Hough v. Huffman, 555 So. 2d 942 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- Sirkin v. Schupler, 90 Fla. 68 (Fla. 1925)