Hollander v. Biscayne Cove

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hollander v. Biscayne Cove

546 So. 2d 739, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1370, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3197, 1989 WL 59572

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 6, 1989

DocketNos. 88-2397, 88-1521

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 546 So. 2d 739 (Hollander v. Biscayne Cove) 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

Hollander v. Biscayne Cove, 546 So. 2d 739, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1370, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3197, 1989 WL 59572 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Agreeing with the trial court that “[t]he Plaintiff breached the Agreement for Purchase and Sale with the Defendant, BISCAYNE COVE, and following Plaintiffs breach said Defendant was under no obligation to do anything further regarding the Contract for Purchase and Sale,” we affirm the final judgment.

We reverse, however, the trial court’s order denying Biscayne Cove attorney’s fees. “A post-judgment motion for attorney’s fees raises a ‘collateral and independent claim’ which the trial court has continuing jurisdiction to entertain within a reasonable time,” Finkelstein v. North Broward Hosp. Dist., 484 So.2d 1241, 1243 (Fla.1986), notwithstanding the trial court’s failure to reserve jurisdiction to award fees, Finkelstein, and the requesting party’s failure to plead entitlement to them. Autorico, Inc. v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 398 So.2d 485 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part; remanded to the trial court for a determination and award of appropriate attorney’s fees.

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

PER CURIAM.

Agreeing with the trial court that “[t]he Plaintiff breached the Agreement for Purchase and Sale with the Defendant, BISCAYNE COVE, and following Plaintiffs breach said Defendant was under no obligation to do anything further regarding the Contract for Purchase and Sale,” we affirm the final judgment.

We reverse, however, the trial court’s order denying Biscayne Cove attorney’s fees. “A post-judgment motion for attorney’s fees raises a ‘collateral and independent claim’ which the trial court has continuing jurisdiction to entertain within a reasonable time,” Finkelstein v. North Broward Hosp. Dist., 484 So.2d 1241, 1243 (Fla.1986), notwithstanding the trial court’s failure to reserve jurisdiction to award fees, Finkelstein, and the requesting party’s failure to plead entitlement to them. Autorico, Inc. v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 398 So.2d 485 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part; remanded to the trial court for a determination and award of appropriate attorney’s fees.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

546 So. 2d 739, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1370, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3197, 1989 WL 59572, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hollander-v-biscayne-cove-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack