Destination Boat Clubs, Inc. v. Island Breeze Boat Club & Rental Inc.
226 So. 3d 301
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Destination Boat Clubs (Destination) paid a $10,000 deposit under a contract with Island Breeze Boat Club & Rental, Inc. (Island Breeze). Island Breeze withdrew from the contract and retained the deposit.
- Destination sued; Island Breeze counterclaimed. Destination obtained a judgment awarding return of the $10,000 and $36,552.90 in attorney fees and costs.
- Destination initiated proceedings supplementary, alleging Island Breeze’s officer/director Peter Stavrou transferred Island Breeze’s monetary assets to the Stavrou family to avoid satisfying judgment. The trial court entered judgment undoing the transfers.
- At a later evidentiary hearing on Destination’s motion for attorney fees and costs under section 56.29(11), the trial court orally found Destination entitled to $40,500 in fees (162 hours × $250) and $1,012.15 in costs against Island Breeze but not against Peter Stavrou individually.
- Despite those oral findings, the written order denied the motion in full. Destination appealed. The appellate court affirmed denial as to Peter Stavrou but reversed as to Island Breeze, holding the denial conflicted with the oral findings and lacked competent substantial evidence to deny fees against the judgment debtor.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Destination was entitled to attorney fees and costs in proceedings supplementary under §56.29(11) | Destination argued the statute mandates fees/costs against the judgment debtor (Island Breeze) and evidence supported the amounts | Island Breeze (unrepresented at hearing) implicitly opposed only by failing to contest amounts; trial court nevertheless denied fees in written order | Reversed as to Island Breeze: statute and uncontroverted evidence required awarding fees/costs; written denial was contrary to oral findings |
| Whether fees/costs could be awarded against Peter Stavrou individually (impleaded party) | Destination argued fees/costs should be assessed against Stavrou due to his role in transfers | Stavrou asserted impleaded parties are not liable in proceedings supplementary; fees are assessed only against original judgment debtor | Affirmed: impleaded parties cannot be directly assessed fees/costs in proceedings supplementary; court may, however, apply fraudulently transferred assets to satisfy judgment against debtor |
| Standard of appellate review for denial of fees | Destination: entitlement rests on statutory interpretation, so de novo review applies | Opposing view: general abuse-of-discretion standard | Court: clarified statutory entitlement reviewed de novo where based on statute; overall denial reasoned against statute and evidence |
| Whether the trial court could apply previously determined fraudulently transferred assets toward a fees judgment | Destination: court may use assets traced from transfers to satisfy judgment | Stavrou/Island Breeze: not argued to prevent application | Court: confirmed that once fees are awarded against judgment debtor, assets fraudulently transferred may be applied to satisfy the judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Raza v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co., 100 So. 3d 121 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (review standard: entitlement based on statute or contract is reviewed de novo)
- Gaedeke Holdings, Ltd. v. Mortg. Consultants, Inc., 877 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (costs in proceedings supplementary shall be taxed against the defendant/judgment debtor)
- Kingston Corp. Grp. of Fla. v. Richard Kleiber Walter Kleiber P'ship, 127 So. 3d 802 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (impleaded parties are not liable for attorney fees in proceedings supplementary)
- Rosenfeld v. TPI Int'l Airways, 630 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (chapter 56 directs that attorney fees, if awarded, are assessed against the judgment debtor)