190 So. 3d 203
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2016Background
- Buyers purchased condo-hotel units marketed as the "Trump International Hotel" with offering documents and purchase agreements disclosing Trump’s licensing/management role and warning that loss of the Trump license could negatively affect value.
- Market collapse between 2005 contract signings and 2009 scheduled closings; only 1 of 170 buyers closed in May 2009; lender failed; project foreclosed and developer interest wiped out.
- Trump Marks issued a default notice to SB Hotel in May 2009 but did not terminate the license or remove the Trump name; SB Hotel warned buyers that the hotel might not open unless sufficient units closed and that occupancy awaited hotel opening.
- Plaintiff sued for ILSA violation, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and misleading advertising under Fla. Stat. § 817.41, alleging reliance on Trump’s role; jury returned verdict for defendants on all counts.
- Defendants sought attorney’s fees/costs based on (a) proposals for settlement under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442/§ 768.79 and (b) § 817.41(6); trial court awarded fees and costs; appeal followed challenging admission/exclusion rulings, directed verdict, denial to amend for punitive damages, and the fee awards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants' proposals for settlement complied with rule 1.442 and § 768.79 so as to support fee award | Proposals failed to state whether attorneys' fees were part of the legal claim and mishandled punitive damages; thus unenforceable | Proposals referenced fees and punitive damages; compliant with rule/statute | Proposals invalid: they mentioned fees but did not state fees are part of the legal claim; fee award based on them reversed |
| Whether defendants entitled to fees under § 817.41(6) and scope/date of such fees | Fees should be limited to misleading-advertising claim and not cover unrelated claims or pre-Dec 13, 2013 work | § 817.41(6) fees overlap with other claims because facts are common; defendants seek full fees | Court affirmed entitlement to fees under § 817.41(6) but remanded for determination whether claims were "inextricably intertwined" and for allocation; fees limited to work from Dec. 13, 2013 unless intertwinement shown |
| Whether trial court properly awarded costs | (Implicit) Costs award challenged as tied to invalid proposals | Costs award supported | Cost judgment affirmed without further comment |
| Evidentiary and trial rulings (market-crash evidence, witness credibility, directed verdict, punitive amendment) | Plaintiffs argued multiple trial errors requiring reversal | Defendants maintained rulings were proper; verdict should stand | Final judgment for defendants affirmed; those trial issues were rejected (no further comment in opinion) |
Key Cases Cited
- Pratt v. Weiss, 161 So. 3d 1268 (2015) (standard of review for awards under § 768.79 and rule 1.442)
- Diamond Aircraft Indus., Inc. v. Horowitch, 107 So. 3d 362 (2013) (strict compliance with rule 1.442 required; proposal must state fees are part of the claim)
- Black Diamond Props., Inc. v. Haines, 36 So. 3d 819 (2010) (fees limited to those directly and exclusively related to the claim on which recovery is allowed)
- Anglia Jacs & Co. v. Dubin, 830 So. 2d 169 (2002) (full fee allowed when claims share common core of facts unless separate allocation shown)
- Caplan v. 1616 E. Sunrise Motors, Inc., 522 So. 2d 920 (1988) (discussing allocation of fees where claims overlap)
- Waverly at Las Olas Condo. Ass’n v. Waverly Las Olas, LLC, 88 So. 3d 386 (2012) (party seeking fees must allocate or show intertwinement)
- Chodorow v. Moore, 947 So. 2d 577 (2007) (same allocation principle)