Avatar New Homes of Florida, Inc. v. Carr

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Avatar New Homes of Florida, Inc. v. Carr

895 So. 2d 1206, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 2219, 2005 WL 433317

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 25, 2005

DocketNos. 5D03-1321, 5D03-2354, 5D03-3071

StatusPublished

This text of 895 So. 2d 1206 (Avatar New Homes of Florida, Inc. v. Carr) 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

Avatar New Homes of Florida, Inc. v. Carr, 895 So. 2d 1206, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 2219, 2005 WL 433317 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellants, Avatar New Homes of Florida, Inc. and Avatar Properties, Inc. [“Avatar”], appeal the trial court’s amended final judgment rejecting their claims against ap-pellee, Cynthia Tañada [“Tañada”], on theories of fraud,'conversion, conspiracy, civil theft and declaratory judgment and awarding Tañada $24,638.70 for past real estate commissions. Also appealed is the final judgment taxing costs and attorneys’ fees against them. Avatar raises three issues: that the trial court erred in the amount of the attorneys’ fees awarded, that the trial court’s findings on entitlement to attorneys’ fees and a multiplier are internally inconsistent, and that the lower court’s award of commissions on certain contracts was not supported by the evidence adduced at trial.¹

Under the circumstances of this case, we do not agree with Avatar that its obligation for attorneys’ fees as the losing party was limited to the contingent fee portion of Tanada’s fee agreement with her counsel, both as a matter of contract interpretation and as a matter of substantive law. We reject Avatar’s contention that this case is in conflict with this court’s decision in Orlando Regional Medical Center v. Chmielewski, 578 So.2d 876 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), abrogated on other grounds, Boulis v. Florida Department of Transportation, 733 So.2d 959 (Fla.1999). Here, Tañada was faced with the defense of multiple serious and potentially career-ending claims and only a small counterclaim for unpaid commissions. The trial court did not err in its award. AFFIRMED.

PETERSON, GRIFFIN and PLEUS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellants, Avatar New Homes of Florida, Inc. and Avatar Properties, Inc. [“Avatar”], appeal the trial court’s amended final judgment rejecting their claims against ap-pellee, Cynthia Tañada [“Tañada”], on theories of fraud,'conversion, conspiracy, civil theft and declaratory judgment and awarding Tañada $24,638.70 for past real estate commissions. Also appealed is the final judgment taxing costs and attorneys’ fees against them. Avatar raises three issues: that the trial court erred in the amount of the attorneys’ fees awarded, that the trial court’s findings on entitlement to attorneys’ fees and a multiplier are internally inconsistent, and that the lower court’s award of commissions on certain contracts was not supported by the evidence adduced at trial.¹

Under the circumstances of this case, we do not agree with Avatar that its obligation for attorneys’ fees as the losing party was limited to the contingent fee portion of Tanada’s fee agreement with her counsel, both as a matter of contract interpretation and as a matter of substantive law. We reject Avatar’s contention that this case is in conflict with this court’s decision in Orlando Regional Medical Center v. Chmielewski, 578 So.2d 876 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), abrogated on other grounds, Boulis v. Florida Department of Transportation, 733 So.2d 959 (Fla.1999). Here, Tañada was faced with the defense of multiple serious and potentially career-ending claims and only a small counterclaim for unpaid commissions. The trial court did not err in its award. AFFIRMED.

PETERSON, GRIFFIN and PLEUS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

895 So. 2d 1206, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 2219, 2005 WL 433317, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/avatar-new-homes-of-florida-inc-v-carr-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack