GEORGE GLADSTONE

v.

BELLAGIO 214 (L L C)

PER CURIAM.

- On September 19, 2006, the Appellant, George Gladstone (“Gladstone”), as lessee, entered into a rental agreement with the Appellee, Bellagio 214, LLC a/6* -v [*2] (“Bellagio”), as lessor, for a one-year lease of an apartment. Prior to the commencement of the lease, Gladstone tendered and Bellagio accepted $1,970.00 as a security deposit, and on October l, 2006, Gladstone began his occupancy ofthe apartment. On September 30, 2007, after the expiration of the leasehold, Gladstone vacated the premises. Thereafter, Gladstone made requests for the return of the security deposit, all ofwhich went unmet. Because of Bellagio’s failure to return the security deposit, on January 14, 2008, Gladstone filed a three-count Statement of Claim against Bellagio, alleging Expedited Return of Security Deposit, Breach of Lease and Accounting, and he attached a request for production thereto. In response, Bellagio filed an answer, certain affirmative defenses, a counterclaim alleging breach of lease, as well as a response to the discovery request.‘ Subsequently, Gladstone was allowed to amend by interlineation to addcounts for conversion and civil theft, bringing the Statement of Claim to five counts. Eventually, Gladstone filed a motion for summary judgment, and on March 12, 2012, the trial court entered a “Final Judgment Against Defendant,” awarding Gladstone the security amount of $1,970.00, plus pre~ and post-judgment interest and costs, but reserved on attorney fees. Notably, while the Final Judgment awarded Gladstone his deposit back, it was not specific as to any of the five counts sued on by Gladstone. On April 20, 2012, Gladstone filed an amended motion for rehearing or reconsideration in which he argued that the court, in its Final Judgment, failed to address ' Gladstone alleges in his brief that at a pretrial conference held on February 14, 2008, Bellagio appeared and invoked the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. [*3] the conversion and civil theft counts, and thus sought a ruling thereon? The court denied the motion and Gladstone has now appealed. Because the form Final Judgment is ambiguous on Gladstone’s motion for summary judgment on the five counts, we remand this case back to the trial court for clarification. See e.g. Josey v. Futch, 254 So. 2d 786 (Fla. 1971). The trial court shall enter a judgment granting or denying each of the five counts sued on by Gladstone and assessing all damages, if found. The lease contained a prevailing party clause awarding attorney fees in the event of litigation, and Gladstone has filed a motion for appellate attorney fees. Gladstone’s motion is granted to the extent that the trial court shall set a proper fee amount for this appellate proceeding in favor of Gladstone, but only if Gladstone ultimately prevails before it on his motion for summary judgment. See East Coast Metal Decks, Inc. v. Boran Craig Barber Engel Construction Co., Ina, 114 So. 3d 3i1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013); Sherwood Partners v. Wickman, 26 So. 3d 590 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) Sabina v. Dahlia Corp, 678 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). Remanded for proceedings consistent herewith. FIRTEL, TRAWICK and HOGAN SCOLA, JJ., concur. COPIES FURNISHED TO COUNSEL

OF RECORD AND TO ANY PARTY

NOT REPRESENTED BY COUSEL