Nelson's, Inc. v. Halifax Construction Co.

305 So. 2d 840, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 7478
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedDecember 31, 1974
DocketNos. 74-326 and 74-502
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 305 So. 2d 840 (Nelson's, Inc. v. Halifax Construction Co.) 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
Nelson's, Inc. v. Halifax Construction Co., 305 So. 2d 840, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 7478 (Fla. Ct. App. 1974).

Opinion

BARKDULL, Chief Judge.

By these consolidated appeals, we are called upon to review the propriety of a final judgment awarding damages to the plaintiff in the trial court for work performed pursuant to a construction contract and also a post final judgment which awarded the plaintiff attorney’s fees, allegedly pursuant to § 713.29, Fla.Stat.

The plaintiff’s complaint was a simple complaint for damages upon alleged breach of contract; there was no claim to enforce a lien either against the real property or to impress a lien against a bond, which had been posted pursuant to § 713.24, Fla.Stat. A notice of lien had been filed by the plaintiff, but it had been transferred to bond; but the surety company on the bond was not even made a party-defendant. Kleinman v. Bal Harbour Towers, Inc., Fla.1967, 198 So.2d 830.

We affirm the trial judge’s entry of a monetary amount as damages as to breach of the construction contract, but we reverse the award of attorney’s fees. Where no lien is found to exist in an action to foreclose a mechanic’s, workman’s, or materialman’s lien under Ch. 713, Fla. Stat., but a money judgment is entered for the lienor, the court may not award the lienor attorney’s fees. Ch. 713.29, Fla. Stat., provides:

“In any action brought to enforce a lien under part I of this chapter, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover a reasonable fee for the services of his attorney, to be determined by the court which shall be taxed as part of his costs.”

In Emery v. International Glass & Mfg., Inc., Fla.App.1971, 249 So.2d 496, a lien claimant was unsuccessful in his foreclosure action, but a money judgment was entered in his favor. The Second District Court of Appeal, in reversing the award of attorney’s fees, held:

j}; ‡ ‡
“ * * * a claimant is not entitled to attorneys’ fees under the section before us, notwithstanding that he ultimately prevails in the case, unless the mode and substance of his recovery is as expressly provided for within the lien law itself. * * * »>
s}c >}í i}c ;{£ ij*

Attorney’s fees may be awarded only to a prevailing party in a lien foreclosure action, and not to a prevailing party in a simple suit for money damages. Jackson v. Hatch, Fla.App.1974, 288 So.2d 564.

[842]*842Therefore, for the reasons stated, the final judgment in the amount of $3,265.95 be and the same is hereby affirmed, but the order awarding attorney’s fees in the amount of $1,875.00 be and the same is hereby reversed.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part.

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

Related

Royal Palm Village Residents, Inc. v. Monica Slider
57 F.4th 960 (Eleventh Circuit, 2023)
Encompass Inc. v. Alford
444 So. 2d 1085 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1984)
Mershon v. Buckles-Thompson, Inc.
383 So. 2d 280 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1980)
ATL. GARDENS LANDSCAPING, INC. v. Boca Raton Land Development, Inc.
360 So. 2d 1278 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
305 So. 2d 840, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 7478, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nelsons-inc-v-halifax-construction-co-fladistctapp-1974.