Kenmort Properties v. Emergency Services 24, Inc.

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: June 25, 2025
• Docket: 3D2024-2041
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed June 25, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D24-2041 Lower Tribunal No. 13-29262-CA-01 ________________

Kenmort Properties, et al., Appellants,

vs.

Emergency Services 24, Inc., Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, William Thomas, Judge.

Weiss Serota Helfman Cole & Bierman, P.L., and Richard Rosengarten; Rosengarten Law PLLC, and Ronald M. Rosengarten, for appellants.

No Appearance, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, SCALES and GOODEN, JJ.

PER CURIAM. In this breach of contract case, after the jury returned a verdict finding

that neither party breached the parties’ contract, the trial court denied the

appellants’1 motion for prevailing party attorney’s fees. We review a trial

court’s prevailing party determination for an abuse of discretion. See

Sablotsky v. Gonzalez-Hernandez, 314 So. 3d 477, 478 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020).

This standard of review requires us to affirm unless we find that no other

reasonable jurist would have denied the appellants’ fees motion. See Wal-

Mart Stores E., LP v. Pineda, 406 So. 3d 995, 998 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025) (“A

trial court abuses its discretion ‘when the judicial action is arbitrary, fanciful,

or unreasonable,’ meaning that no reasonable jurist ‘would take the view

adopted by the trial court.’” (quoting Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d

1197, 1203 (Fla. 1980))). Given our highly deferential standard of review, we

are compelled to affirm the challenged order. See Radosevich v. Bank of

N.Y. Mellon, 245 So. 3d 877, 881 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (“[W]here litigation

ultimately ends in a proverbial ‘tie,’ with each party prevailing in part and

losing in part on the significant issues in the litigation, a trial court may

properly determine that neither party has prevailed for purposes of

entitlement to attorney’s fees.”); M.A. Hajianpour, M.D., P.A. v. Khosrow

1 The appellants are Kenmort Properties, Nyman Properties LLC and The Charlotte Ross Family LLC.

2 Maleki, P.A., 975 So. 2d 1288, 1290 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (“[I]t appears that

the parties battled to a draw. It is not an abuse of discretion to decline to

award attorney’s fees when a court determines that neither party prevailed.”);

Baldoria v. Sec. Realty Inv., Inc., 581 So. 2d 189, 191 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)

(“Here, neither buyer nor seller recovered against the other. As there was no

prevailing party as between the parties to the contract, the trial court correctly

denied attorney’s fees.”).

Affirmed.