Gibson v. Courtois

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gibson v. Courtois

509 So. 2d 962, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1577, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 9146

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 26, 1987

DocketNo. 86-2368

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 509 So. 2d 962 (Gibson v. Courtois) 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

Gibson v. Courtois, 509 So. 2d 962, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1577, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 9146 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a postjudgment order which denied appellant’s motion for attorney’s fees. We affirm.

Appellant’s motion was based upon an attorney’s fees provision in a contractual offer to purchase appellees’ home. In its final judgment in the underlying action, the trial court ruled that appellant had revoked that offer before appellees had accepted it. Accordingly, the trial court ordered appel-lees to return the escrow deposit given with the offer to appellant. This court affirmed that final judgment. See Courtois v. Gibson, 485 So.2d 429 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).

Because the contract upon which appellant’s motion for attorney’s fees was predicated never came into existence, there was no basis on which to award attorney’s fees. Therefore, the trial court was correct in denying appellant’s motion. Weiner v. Tenenbaum, 452 So.2d 986 (Fla. 3d DCA), pet. for rev. dismissed, 458 So.2d 274 (Fla.1984); Leitman v. Boone, 439 So.2d 318 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). In following Weiner and Leitman, we recognize that we are in conflict with Sousa v. Palumbo, 426 So.2d 1072 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).

SCHEB, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and SANDERLIN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a postjudgment order which denied appellant’s motion for attorney’s fees. We affirm.

Appellant’s motion was based upon an attorney’s fees provision in a contractual offer to purchase appellees’ home. In its final judgment in the underlying action, the trial court ruled that appellant had revoked that offer before appellees had accepted it. Accordingly, the trial court ordered appel-lees to return the escrow deposit given with the offer to appellant. This court affirmed that final judgment. See Courtois v. Gibson, 485 So.2d 429 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).

Because the contract upon which appellant’s motion for attorney’s fees was predicated never came into existence, there was no basis on which to award attorney’s fees. Therefore, the trial court was correct in denying appellant’s motion. Weiner v. Tenenbaum, 452 So.2d 986 (Fla. 3d DCA), pet. for rev. dismissed, 458 So.2d 274 (Fla.1984); Leitman v. Boone, 439 So.2d 318 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). In following Weiner and Leitman, we recognize that we are in conflict with Sousa v. Palumbo, 426 So.2d 1072 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).

SCHEB, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and SANDERLIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

509 So. 2d 962, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1577, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 9146, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gibson-v-courtois-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack