Dickson v. Feiner's Organization, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Dickson v. Feiner's Organization, Inc.

200 So. 2d 269, 1967 Fla. App. LEXIS 4974

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 22, 1967

DocketNo. 841

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 200 So. 2d 269 (Dickson v. Feiner's Organization, 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

Dickson v. Feiner's Organization, Inc., 200 So. 2d 269, 1967 Fla. App. LEXIS 4974 (Fla. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an interlocutory appeal in a creditor’s suit. The trial court entered an order upon defendants’ motions to strike, to dismiss and for a more definite statement. Defendants appeal. Except for one point hereinafter mentioned we affirm.

Defendants, by motion, sought to strike plaintiffs’ claim for attorney fees. This motion was denied in the order appealed. This constituted error.

The rule recognized by both sides is that attorney fees are not recoverable as damages in the absence of contractual or statutory liability therefor. See 9 Fla. Jur., Damages, §77; 7 F.L.P., Damages, § 21. It is undisputed that there was no statute or contract authorizing such recovery in the instant case.

Appellees urge an exception to the general rule on the basis of claimed inequitable conduct. In sole support of their proposed exception creating their entitlement to such fees, appellees cite an article appearing in the Florida Law Journal, July 1952, page 281, which undertakes to discuss the background of the case of Dade County Newsdealers Supply Co. v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Company, Fla.1951, 52 So.2d 912, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court without opinion. In the light of the clear published precedents obtaining in our state, we are not persuaded by the cited article or the plaintiffs’ allegations that any reason exists in the instant case to create an exception to the rule.

The order appealed is affirmed, in part, and reversed, in part, as hereinabove indicated.

WALDEN, C. J., ANDREWS and CROSS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an interlocutory appeal in a creditor’s suit. The trial court entered an order upon defendants’ motions to strike, to dismiss and for a more definite statement. Defendants appeal. Except for one point hereinafter mentioned we affirm.

Defendants, by motion, sought to strike plaintiffs’ claim for attorney fees. This motion was denied in the order appealed. This constituted error.

The rule recognized by both sides is that attorney fees are not recoverable as damages in the absence of contractual or statutory liability therefor. See 9 Fla. Jur., Damages, §77; 7 F.L.P., Damages, § 21. It is undisputed that there was no statute or contract authorizing such recovery in the instant case.

Appellees urge an exception to the general rule on the basis of claimed inequitable conduct. In sole support of their proposed exception creating their entitlement to such fees, appellees cite an article appearing in the Florida Law Journal, July 1952, page 281, which undertakes to discuss the background of the case of Dade County Newsdealers Supply Co. v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Company, Fla.1951, 52 So.2d 912, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court without opinion. In the light of the clear published precedents obtaining in our state, we are not persuaded by the cited article or the plaintiffs’ allegations that any reason exists in the instant case to create an exception to the rule.

The order appealed is affirmed, in part, and reversed, in part, as hereinabove indicated.

WALDEN, C. J., ANDREWS and CROSS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 So. 2d 269, 1967 Fla. App. LEXIS 4974, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dickson-v-feiners-organization-inc-fladistctapp-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack