Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. First Union National Bank of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. First Union National Bank of Florida

711 So. 2d 1166, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 2895

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 25, 1998

DocketNos. 97-1416, 97-1012

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 711 So. 2d 1166 (Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. First Union National Bank of Florida) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. First Union National Bank of Florida, 711 So. 2d 1166, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 2895 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The record herein fails to reflect substantial competent evidence to support the appel-lee’s contention that it incurred attorney’s fees as a result of the appellant’s failure to pay, or delay in paying, the $210,000.00 that appellant owed to appellee by virtue of the default of the borrower. Rather, it is clear from the record that, even if the appellant had immediately paid the $210,000.00 in question, the appellee would have incurred all of the attorney’s fees that it did, in fact, incur because of appellee’s lawsuit against the borrower wherein appellee sought to recover $2.6 million and, in addition, the fact that appellee further incurred attorney’s fees in defending against the counter-claim filed by the borrower in an amount in excess of $20 million. Accordingly, the order under review is reversed and this cause is remanded for the purpose of allowing the trial court to enter such orders as are appropriate and consistent herewith.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The record herein fails to reflect substantial competent evidence to support the appel-lee’s contention that it incurred attorney’s fees as a result of the appellant’s failure to pay, or delay in paying, the $210,000.00 that appellant owed to appellee by virtue of the default of the borrower. Rather, it is clear from the record that, even if the appellant had immediately paid the $210,000.00 in question, the appellee would have incurred all of the attorney’s fees that it did, in fact, incur because of appellee’s lawsuit against the borrower wherein appellee sought to recover $2.6 million and, in addition, the fact that appellee further incurred attorney’s fees in defending against the counter-claim filed by the borrower in an amount in excess of $20 million. Accordingly, the order under review is reversed and this cause is remanded for the purpose of allowing the trial court to enter such orders as are appropriate and consistent herewith.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

711 So. 2d 1166, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 2895, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aetna-casualty-surety-co-v-first-union-national-bank-of-florida-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack