Alexander Muss & Sons, Inc. v. Nelson

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Alexander Muss & Sons, Inc. v. Nelson

366 So. 2d 532, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 14236

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 23, 1979

DocketNo. 78-561

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 366 So. 2d 532 (Alexander Muss & Sons, Inc. v. Nelson) 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

Alexander Muss & Sons, Inc. v. Nelson, 366 So. 2d 532, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 14236 (Fla. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff landlord sued for the rent on an apartment for the balance of the term after the death of the tenants. The personal representative proved a settlement agreement entered into prior to the institution of this suit. Although the existence of the settlement was controverted, the court found that the settlement was, in fact, made and that it acted as a novation of the contract. The final judgment for the plaintiff was for the amount specified in the settlement agreement. In addition, the court allowed the plaintiff an attorney’s fee ' pursuant to an agreement in the lease. The plaintiff appealed and urged as error the refusal of the trial court to apply the Florida Rules of Probate and Guardianship Procedure to the trial of the cause. We find no error and affirm the judgment upon the merits.

The defendant has cross-appealed and urges as error that portion of the final judgment allowing an attorney’s fee to the plaintiff. Without reaching the question of the plaintiff’s entitlement to an attorney’s fee, we hold that the award must be reversed upon authority of the rule set forth in Flournoy v. Smith, 84 Fla. 553, 94 So. 503 (1922); Lee v. Gilbert, Silverstein and Hellman, 350 So.2d 1147 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); and Lyle v. Lyle, 167 So.2d 256 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964).

The judgment is affirmed except for that portion allowing an attorney’s fee to the plaintiff, which is reversed.

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff landlord sued for the rent on an apartment for the balance of the term after the death of the tenants. The personal representative proved a settlement agreement entered into prior to the institution of this suit. Although the existence of the settlement was controverted, the court found that the settlement was, in fact, made and that it acted as a novation of the contract. The final judgment for the plaintiff was for the amount specified in the settlement agreement. In addition, the court allowed the plaintiff an attorney’s fee ' pursuant to an agreement in the lease. The plaintiff appealed and urged as error the refusal of the trial court to apply the Florida Rules of Probate and Guardianship Procedure to the trial of the cause. We find no error and affirm the judgment upon the merits.

The defendant has cross-appealed and urges as error that portion of the final judgment allowing an attorney’s fee to the plaintiff. Without reaching the question of the plaintiff’s entitlement to an attorney’s fee, we hold that the award must be reversed upon authority of the rule set forth in Flournoy v. Smith, 84 Fla. 553, 94 So. 503 (1922); Lee v. Gilbert, Silverstein and Hellman, 350 So.2d 1147 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); and Lyle v. Lyle, 167 So.2d 256 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964).

The judgment is affirmed except for that portion allowing an attorney’s fee to the plaintiff, which is reversed.

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

366 So. 2d 532, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 14236, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alexander-muss-sons-inc-v-nelson-fladistctapp-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack