Stankee Development Corp. v. Citicorp Savings of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Stankee Development Corp. v. Citicorp Savings of Florida

526 So. 2d 90, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2527, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 10815, 1987 WL 1167

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 4, 1987

DocketNo. 87-1589

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 526 So. 2d 90 (Stankee Development Corp. v. Citicorp Savings of Florida) 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

Stankee Development Corp. v. Citicorp Savings of Florida, 526 So. 2d 90, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2527, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 10815, 1987 WL 1167 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

ON MOTION TO FILE AMENDED MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

GLICKSTEIN, Judge.

In an earlier case this court denied appellate attorney’s fees claimed under a note provision that lacked the language of mutuality of relief we thought to be implicitly required, to activate section 59.46, Florida Statutes (1985). Palm Beach Management Corporation v. DeWoody and Company, 497 So.2d 1298 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). The statutory section construes as including appellate attorney’s fees a provision of a statute or contract that provides for payment of attorney’s fees to the prevailing party, absent an expressed contrary intent.

In the recent case of Cheek v. McGowan Electric Supply Co., 511 So.2d 977, 980 (Fla.1987), the Florida Supreme Court held that section 59.46, Florida Statutes (1985), extends a contractual attorney’s fee provision to appellate attorney’s fees even [91]*91though the subject contractual fee provision is unilateral.

The captioned motion has called this updated construction of the pertinent law to our attention. Although we do not ordinarily address opinions to motions, we do so now to alert bench and bar to the foregoing information.

We grant appellee’s motion to file amended motion for attorney’s fees out of time.

HERSEY, C.J., and DOWNEY, J., concur.

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

ON MOTION TO FILE AMENDED MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

GLICKSTEIN, Judge.

In an earlier case this court denied appellate attorney’s fees claimed under a note provision that lacked the language of mutuality of relief we thought to be implicitly required, to activate section 59.46, Florida Statutes (1985). Palm Beach Management Corporation v. DeWoody and Company, 497 So.2d 1298 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). The statutory section construes as including appellate attorney’s fees a provision of a statute or contract that provides for payment of attorney’s fees to the prevailing party, absent an expressed contrary intent.

In the recent case of Cheek v. McGowan Electric Supply Co., 511 So.2d 977, 980 (Fla.1987), the Florida Supreme Court held that section 59.46, Florida Statutes (1985), extends a contractual attorney’s fee provision to appellate attorney’s fees even [91]*91though the subject contractual fee provision is unilateral.

The captioned motion has called this updated construction of the pertinent law to our attention. Although we do not ordinarily address opinions to motions, we do so now to alert bench and bar to the foregoing information.

We grant appellee’s motion to file amended motion for attorney’s fees out of time.

HERSEY, C.J., and DOWNEY, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

526 So. 2d 90, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2527, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 10815, 1987 WL 1167, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stankee-development-corp-v-citicorp-savings-of-florida-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack