Williams v. Williams

892 So. 2d 1154, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 241, 2005 WL 94775
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJanuary 19, 2005
DocketNo. 3D04-204
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 892 So. 2d 1154 (Williams v. Williams) 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
Williams v. Williams, 892 So. 2d 1154, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 241, 2005 WL 94775 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Aubyn G. Williams (“former wife”), appeals a post-dissolution order denying her request for attorney’s fees and costs. We reverse.

The former wife and appellee Douglas L. Williams (“former husband”) entered into a post-dissolution mediation agreement requiring the former husband to pay a specific amount of child support. The mediation agreement contained a prevailing party attorney’s fees clause that specified: “If either party breaches this Agreement or files a modification petition, the prevailing party shall receive his or her attorney fees.”

Approximately one year after the trial court ratified the mediation agreement, the former husband reduced the weekly child support payments. The former wife then filed a motion to compel payment under the mediation agreement.

Ultimately, after a hearing, the former wife prevailed in her motion to compel. However, the trial court found that the former husband did not “willfully” breach the agreement, determining that neither party was entitled to attorney’s fees. We disagree.

Contractual provisions concerning attorney’s fees are to be strictly construed. See Wendel v. Wendel, 852 So.2d 277 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Pici v. First Union National Bank of Florida, 705 So.2d 50 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). The ratified agreement clearly provided that the prevailing party is entitled to attorney’s fees. Here, the former wife prevailed on the significant issue of child support in the post-dissolution litigation, and is thus considered the prevailing party for purposes of attorney’s fees. See Moritz v. Hoyt Enterprises, Inc., 604 So.2d 807 (Fla.1992). Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the trial court with instructions to determine an appropriate amount of attorney’s fees pursuant to the mediation agreement.

Reversed and remanded with instructions.

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

Related

Planned Parenthood of Greater Orlando v. MMB Properties
171 So. 3d 125 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2015)
Garcia v. Garcia
900 So. 2d 606 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
892 So. 2d 1154, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 241, 2005 WL 94775, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-williams-fladistctapp-2005.