Downey v. Surf Club Apartments, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Downey v. Surf Club Apartments, Inc.

689 So. 2d 348, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 971, 1997 WL 55622

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 12, 1997

DocketNo. 96-1862

StatusPublished

This text of 689 So. 2d 348 (Downey v. Surf Club Apartments, 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

Downey v. Surf Club Apartments, Inc., 689 So. 2d 348, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 971, 1997 WL 55622 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

After The Surf Club Apartments, Inc. [Surf Club] filed its complaint, John E. Downey filed a counterclaim seeking, inter alia, attorney’s fees if he prevailed. Surf Club then amended its complaint to include a claim for attorney’s fees if it prevailed. However, neither party was entitled to attorney’s fees as fees were not authorized by statute, provided for by contract, or awarda-ble for services performed by an attorney in creating or bringing into court a fund or other property. Leitman v. Boone, 439 So.2d 318 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Nevertheless, the trial court awarded attorney’s fees to Surf Club, the prevailing party, on the basis that Downey, because he sought attorney’s fees, was estopped from denying that Surf Club was entitled to attorney’s fees. In Leit-man, we rejected estoppel as the basis for an award of attorney’s fees, with a thorough analysis thereof, including a dissenting opinion that, had it been the majority opinion, would possibly have required us to affirm the fee award to Surf Club. Id. at 322. As it was not the majority opinion, however, no matter how masterfully persuasive it might appear to be, we must, and do, reverse the order awarding attorney’s fees to Surf Club.

Reversed.

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

PER CURIAM.

After The Surf Club Apartments, Inc. [Surf Club] filed its complaint, John E. Downey filed a counterclaim seeking, inter alia, attorney’s fees if he prevailed. Surf Club then amended its complaint to include a claim for attorney’s fees if it prevailed. However, neither party was entitled to attorney’s fees as fees were not authorized by statute, provided for by contract, or awarda-ble for services performed by an attorney in creating or bringing into court a fund or other property. Leitman v. Boone, 439 So.2d 318 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Nevertheless, the trial court awarded attorney’s fees to Surf Club, the prevailing party, on the basis that Downey, because he sought attorney’s fees, was estopped from denying that Surf Club was entitled to attorney’s fees. In Leit-man, we rejected estoppel as the basis for an award of attorney’s fees, with a thorough analysis thereof, including a dissenting opinion that, had it been the majority opinion, would possibly have required us to affirm the fee award to Surf Club. Id. at 322. As it was not the majority opinion, however, no matter how masterfully persuasive it might appear to be, we must, and do, reverse the order awarding attorney’s fees to Surf Club.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

689 So. 2d 348, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 971, 1997 WL 55622, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/downey-v-surf-club-apartments-inc-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack