Perez Sandoval v. Banco De Comercio, S.A.
Opinion
In consolidated matters, Juan Vicente Perez Sandoval and Sandy Bay Investments Co. appeal from a final judgment in favor of plaintiffs/appellees, three interrelated Venezuelan financial institutions, in an action for fraud and misappropriation of funds and from a final judgment taxing attorney’s fees and costs. We affirm.1
The principal issue raised in this appeal is whether Venezuelan law applied by the trial judge,2 regulating Venezuelan financial institutions and its officers, was penal in nature. We conclude that the trial court properly held that the applicable Venezuelan banking laws were not penal and, accordingly affirm the judgment finding Sandoval and Sandy Bay liable. See Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U.S. 657, 13 S.Ct. 224, 36 L.Ed. 1123 (1892).
We likewise affirm the award of attorney’s fees and costs. The issue of attorney’s fees as provided under Venezuelan law is substantive, and Venezuelan law was properly applied. See Whitten v. Progressive Casualty Ins. Co., 410 So.2d 501 (Fla.1982) (an award of attorney’s fees is a matter of substantive law properly under the aegis of the legislature). Appellees prayed for attorney’s fees and costs in a timely post-judgment motion. They were not required to plead entitlement to attorney’s fees in their complaint. Downs v. Stockman, 555 So.2d 867 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989).
[829] Appellants’ remaining points on appeal are without merit.
Affirmed.
Footnotes
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
566 So. 2d 828 (Perez Sandoval v. Banco De Comercio, S.A.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.