Natarajan v. Horn

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Natarajan v. Horn

402 So. 2d 596, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 20878

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 26, 1981

DocketNo. 80-1979

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 402 So. 2d 596 (Natarajan v. Horn) 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

Natarajan v. Horn, 402 So. 2d 596, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 20878 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

BOARDMAN, Acting Chief Judge.

Ponnuswamy Natarajan, plaintiff below, appeals a final judgment granting a directed verdict in favor of appellee/defendant Paris Horn in appellant’s action seeking reformation or rescission of an executed contract between the parties whereby appellee sold appellant a parcel of real estate and the residential structure thereon. Appellant also challenges the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees to appellee. Finding no merit to the substantive issues raised by appellant, we affirm the directed verdict, but we reverse the award of attorney’s fees.

Appellee made her request for fees on the basis of section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1979), which mandates the award of attorney’s fees to the prevailing party if the court finds a complete absence of a justicia-ble issue of either of law or fact raised by the losing party. The trial court found, and properly so, that an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to this statute was not justified under the facts and circumstances of this case. However, the trial court nevertheless awarded fees as requested, predicating its decision on certain language in the contract between the parties. This, we hold, was error.

The only clause in the contract that concerns legal fees provides: “Any party failing to comply with the terms of this contract will pay all expenses, including a reasonable Attorney’s fee, incurred by the other party to this contract as a result of such failure.” Appellee is not entitled to fees under this clause. There is no contention [597]*597that appellant failed to comply with any term of the contract. Moreover, this action was not brought to enforce the contract or any provision thereof, but rather to rescind or reform the contract. Thus this action is completely outside the terms of the contract.

Accordingly, the portion of the final judgment awarding appellant nothing on his claim against appellee is affirmed, but the award of attorney’s fees to appellee is stricken.

GRIMES and RYDER, JJ., concur.

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

BOARDMAN, Acting Chief Judge.

Ponnuswamy Natarajan, plaintiff below, appeals a final judgment granting a directed verdict in favor of appellee/defendant Paris Horn in appellant’s action seeking reformation or rescission of an executed contract between the parties whereby appellee sold appellant a parcel of real estate and the residential structure thereon. Appellant also challenges the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees to appellee. Finding no merit to the substantive issues raised by appellant, we affirm the directed verdict, but we reverse the award of attorney’s fees.

Appellee made her request for fees on the basis of section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1979), which mandates the award of attorney’s fees to the prevailing party if the court finds a complete absence of a justicia-ble issue of either of law or fact raised by the losing party. The trial court found, and properly so, that an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to this statute was not justified under the facts and circumstances of this case. However, the trial court nevertheless awarded fees as requested, predicating its decision on certain language in the contract between the parties. This, we hold, was error.

The only clause in the contract that concerns legal fees provides: “Any party failing to comply with the terms of this contract will pay all expenses, including a reasonable Attorney’s fee, incurred by the other party to this contract as a result of such failure.” Appellee is not entitled to fees under this clause. There is no contention [597]*597that appellant failed to comply with any term of the contract. Moreover, this action was not brought to enforce the contract or any provision thereof, but rather to rescind or reform the contract. Thus this action is completely outside the terms of the contract.

Accordingly, the portion of the final judgment awarding appellant nothing on his claim against appellee is affirmed, but the award of attorney’s fees to appellee is stricken.

GRIMES and RYDER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

402 So. 2d 596, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 20878, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/natarajan-v-horn-fladistctapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack