Goellner v. Kemp

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Goellner v. Kemp

698 So. 2d 306, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 8487

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 25, 1997

DocketNos. 96-03636, 96-04382

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 698 So. 2d 306 (Goellner v. Kemp) 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

Goellner v. Kemp, 698 So. 2d 306, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 8487 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellants challenge the trial court’s failure to award them damages in this breach of contract action. They also contend that the trial court erred in failing to award them attorney’s fees and costs. We agree that the appellants should have been awarded damages after the trial court determined that the appellees had breached the parties’ mortgage agreement. Accordingly, we remand to the trial court with directions that it enter a money judgment for the appellants based on the evidence presented at trial.

We also reverse the trial court’s denial of fees and costs. In view of this disposition, the trial court shall reevaluate on remand whether the appellants now qualify as prevailing parties for the purpose of such an award. See Prosperi v.Code, Inc., 626 So.2d 1360 (Fla.1993); Moritz v. Hoyt Enters., Inc., 604 So.2d 807 (Fla.1992); KCIN, Inc. v. Canpro Invs., Ltd., 675 So.2d 222 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). We otherwise affirm the judgment under review.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.

SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and PATTERSON and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellants challenge the trial court’s failure to award them damages in this breach of contract action. They also contend that the trial court erred in failing to award them attorney’s fees and costs. We agree that the appellants should have been awarded damages after the trial court determined that the appellees had breached the parties’ mortgage agreement. Accordingly, we remand to the trial court with directions that it enter a money judgment for the appellants based on the evidence presented at trial.

We also reverse the trial court’s denial of fees and costs. In view of this disposition, the trial court shall reevaluate on remand whether the appellants now qualify as prevailing parties for the purpose of such an award. See Prosperi v.Code, Inc., 626 So.2d 1360 (Fla.1993); Moritz v. Hoyt Enters., Inc., 604 So.2d 807 (Fla.1992); KCIN, Inc. v. Canpro Invs., Ltd., 675 So.2d 222 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). We otherwise affirm the judgment under review.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.

SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and PATTERSON and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

698 So. 2d 306, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 8487, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goellner-v-kemp-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack