Sidlow v. Bowles Custom Pool & Spas, Inc.

32 So. 3d 722, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 4695, 2010 WL 1404068
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedApril 9, 2010
Docket5D09-1024
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 32 So. 3d 722 (Sidlow v. Bowles Custom Pool & Spas, 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
Sidlow v. Bowles Custom Pool & Spas, Inc., 32 So. 3d 722, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 4695, 2010 WL 1404068 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this breach of contract action, the prevailing party is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to the terms of the contract. The trial court has broad discretion to determine which party prevailed on the significant issues in the litigation. Moritz v. Hoyt Enterprises, Inc., 604 So.2d 807 (Fla.1992). A measure of this test is the “result obtained” at the close of the case. Granoff v. Seidle, 915 So.2d 674, 677 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). “The test is not who was partly at fault in creating the controversy which gave rise to the lawsuit.” Sorrentino v. River Run Condo. Ass’n, 925 So.2d 1060, 1065 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).

Applying these principles, we affirm the trial court’s order granting Appellee’s request for attorney’s fees as the party who prevailed on the significant issues of the case. We find no abuse of the broad discretion vested in the trial court when considering such matters.

AFFIRMED.

ORFINGER, TORPY and LAWSON, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
32 So. 3d 722, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 4695, 2010 WL 1404068, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sidlow-v-bowles-custom-pool-spas-inc-fladistctapp-2010.