Mikesue, Inc. v. DSR Group, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mikesue, Inc. v. DSR Group, Inc.

691 So. 2d 56, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 3248, 1997 WL 163556

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 9, 1997

DocketNo. 95-3970

StatusPublished

This text of 691 So. 2d 56 (Mikesue, Inc. v. DSR Group, Inc.) 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

Mikesue, Inc. v. DSR Group, Inc., 691 So. 2d 56, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 3248, 1997 WL 163556 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In its order enforcing the parties’ handwritten settlement agreement, the trial court held that the agreement incorporated the promissory note modification. Under the attorney’s fee provision contained in that note, Mikesue, Inc. is entitled to recover attorney’s fees it incurred in enforcing the settlement agreement. We reverse the order denying attorney’s fees and remand to the trial court for the determination of a reasonable fee for that portion of the case.

We affirm the trial court’s denial of attorney’s fees, insofar as the order pertained to the claim for indemnity for charges relating to the leased van. Under the 1994 indemnity agreement, Mikesue did not “commence an action” arising out of the agreement so that its entitlement to attorney’s fees was triggered. Instead, it raised the indemnity issue for the first time in the motion to enforce the settlement agreement. An action is commenced by the filing of a complaint or petition. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.050. We also affirm the order denying "appellee DSR Group, Inc.’s claim for fees under section . 57.105(1), Florida Statutes (1995).

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.

POLEN, PARIENTE and GROSS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In its order enforcing the parties’ handwritten settlement agreement, the trial court held that the agreement incorporated the promissory note modification. Under the attorney’s fee provision contained in that note, Mikesue, Inc. is entitled to recover attorney’s fees it incurred in enforcing the settlement agreement. We reverse the order denying attorney’s fees and remand to the trial court for the determination of a reasonable fee for that portion of the case.

We affirm the trial court’s denial of attorney’s fees, insofar as the order pertained to the claim for indemnity for charges relating to the leased van. Under the 1994 indemnity agreement, Mikesue did not “commence an action” arising out of the agreement so that its entitlement to attorney’s fees was triggered. Instead, it raised the indemnity issue for the first time in the motion to enforce the settlement agreement. An action is commenced by the filing of a complaint or petition. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.050. We also affirm the order denying "appellee DSR Group, Inc.’s claim for fees under section . 57.105(1), Florida Statutes (1995).

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.

POLEN, PARIENTE and GROSS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

691 So. 2d 56, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 3248, 1997 WL 163556, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mikesue-inc-v-dsr-group-inc-fladistctapp-1997.