Tower Cranes of America, Inc. v. Monte Campbell Crane Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Tower Cranes of America, Inc. v. Monte Campbell Crane Co.

627 So. 2d 1350, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 13216, 1993 WL 538212

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 29, 1993

DocketNo. 92-3237

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 627 So. 2d 1350 (Tower Cranes of America, Inc. v. Monte Campbell Crane 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

Tower Cranes of America, Inc. v. Monte Campbell Crane Co., 627 So. 2d 1350, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 13216, 1993 WL 538212 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the denial of attorney’s fees under section 57.115, Florida Statutes (1991). That section allows the discretionary award to a judgment creditor of fees incurred in connection with execution on a judgment. Having reviewed the record, including the transcript of the hearing, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

On appeal appellant also argues that it was entitled to fees by contract, but that theory of recovery was not raised in the motion for fees or at the hearing. In any event, the contractual provision at issue would not support an award of post-judgment attorney’s fees. See Florida Pottery Stores v. American National Bank, 578 So.2d 801 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).

HERSEY, GUNTHER and WARNER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the denial of attorney’s fees under section 57.115, Florida Statutes (1991). That section allows the discretionary award to a judgment creditor of fees incurred in connection with execution on a judgment. Having reviewed the record, including the transcript of the hearing, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

On appeal appellant also argues that it was entitled to fees by contract, but that theory of recovery was not raised in the motion for fees or at the hearing. In any event, the contractual provision at issue would not support an award of post-judgment attorney’s fees. See Florida Pottery Stores v. American National Bank, 578 So.2d 801 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).

HERSEY, GUNTHER and WARNER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

627 So. 2d 1350, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 13216, 1993 WL 538212, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tower-cranes-of-america-inc-v-monte-campbell-crane-co-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack