Hollander v. Biscayne Cove

546 So. 2d 739, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1370, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3197, 1989 WL 59572
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 6, 1989·No. Nos. 88-2397, 88-1521·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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

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).

546 So. 2d 739 (Hollander v. Biscayne Cove) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Downs v. Stockman
555 So. 2d 867 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)