Hha Borrower, LLC. v. W.G. Yates & Sons Constr. Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hha Borrower, LLC. v. W.G. Yates & Sons Constr. Co.

266 So. 3d 1267

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 22, 2019

DocketCase Nos. 5D17-2783; 5D18-1357

StatusPublished

This text of 266 So. 3d 1267 (Hha Borrower, LLC. v. W.G. Yates & Sons Constr. Co.) 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

Hha Borrower, LLC. v. W.G. Yates & Sons Constr. Co., 266 So. 3d 1267 (Fla. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

HARRIS, J.

*1268HHA Borrower, LLC ("HHA") appeals the trial court's order finding that W.G. Yates & Sons Construction Company ("Yates") was the prevailing party on the significant issues and thus entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs. This complex case, a highly contested and protracted construction lien litigation, involved multiple significant issues and each party prevailed on different ones. Under the specific facts and history of this case, it would be inequitable to award attorney's fees to either party, because although both won on significant issues, they also both lost on significant issues. See Brevard Cty. Fair Ass'n, v. Cocoa Expo., 832 So.2d 147 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). We find that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to find that HHA was also a prevailing party on significant issues in the case.

Therefore, we reverse the final order awarding attorney's fees and costs to Yates and remand to the trial court with instructions to enter an order determining that neither party was the prevailing party under section 713.29, Florida Statutes (2017), and to deny both requests for attorney's fees in this case. See Trytek v. Gale Indus., 3 So.3d 1194 (Fla. 2009) ; Prosperi v. Code, Inc., 626 So.2d 1360 (Fla. 1993) ; Moritz v. Hoyt Enters. Inc., 604 So.2d 807 (Fla. 1992) ; C.U. Assocs. v. R.B. Grove, Inc., 472 So.2d 1177 (Fla. 1985).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

GROSSHANS, J., and BLECHMAN, M., Associate Judge, concur.

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

HARRIS, J.

*1268HHA Borrower, LLC ("HHA") appeals the trial court's order finding that W.G. Yates & Sons Construction Company ("Yates") was the prevailing party on the significant issues and thus entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs. This complex case, a highly contested and protracted construction lien litigation, involved multiple significant issues and each party prevailed on different ones. Under the specific facts and history of this case, it would be inequitable to award attorney's fees to either party, because although both won on significant issues, they also both lost on significant issues. See Brevard Cty. Fair Ass'n, v. Cocoa Expo., 832 So.2d 147 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). We find that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to find that HHA was also a prevailing party on significant issues in the case.

Therefore, we reverse the final order awarding attorney's fees and costs to Yates and remand to the trial court with instructions to enter an order determining that neither party was the prevailing party under section 713.29, Florida Statutes (2017), and to deny both requests for attorney's fees in this case. See Trytek v. Gale Indus., 3 So.3d 1194 (Fla. 2009) ; Prosperi v. Code, Inc., 626 So.2d 1360 (Fla. 1993) ; Moritz v. Hoyt Enters. Inc., 604 So.2d 807 (Fla. 1992) ; C.U. Assocs. v. R.B. Grove, Inc., 472 So.2d 1177 (Fla. 1985).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

GROSSHANS, J., and BLECHMAN, M., Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 So. 3d 1267, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hha-borrower-llc-v-wg-yates-sons-constr-co-fladistctapp-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack