Armento v. Vinnie Ceramic Tile & Marble, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Armento v. Vinnie Ceramic Tile & Marble, Inc.

616 So. 2d 1189, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 4549, 1993 WL 120373

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 21, 1993

DocketNo. 92-0870

StatusPublished

This text of 616 So. 2d 1189 (Armento v. Vinnie Ceramic Tile & Marble, Inc.) 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

Armento v. Vinnie Ceramic Tile & Marble, Inc., 616 So. 2d 1189, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 4549, 1993 WL 120373 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the final judgment entered against appellants, reverse the award of attorney’s fees to appellee and determine that only the basis for reversal warrants some discussion.

The contract executed by the parties clearly contemplated an attorney’s fee to appellee if it became embroiled in an action to collect sums owed it by appellants. It did not encompass an action such as the present where appellee was paid what it was owed under the contract. Appellants unsuccessfully sued appellee because of their dissatisfaction with appellee’s installation of marble tiles in their home. In our view, none of the cases cited by appellee in support of the award of attorney's fees is applicable here.

GLICKSTEIN, C.J., ANSTEAD, J., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Senior Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the final judgment entered against appellants, reverse the award of attorney’s fees to appellee and determine that only the basis for reversal warrants some discussion.

The contract executed by the parties clearly contemplated an attorney’s fee to appellee if it became embroiled in an action to collect sums owed it by appellants. It did not encompass an action such as the present where appellee was paid what it was owed under the contract. Appellants unsuccessfully sued appellee because of their dissatisfaction with appellee’s installation of marble tiles in their home. In our view, none of the cases cited by appellee in support of the award of attorney's fees is applicable here.

GLICKSTEIN, C.J., ANSTEAD, J., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Senior Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

616 So. 2d 1189, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 4549, 1993 WL 120373, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/armento-v-vinnie-ceramic-tile-marble-inc-fladistctapp-1993.