217 So. 3d 1128
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2017Background
- Association petitioned in 2012 to appoint a receiver for 75 delinquent condominium units; a receiver was appointed and later granted authority to vote on behalf of delinquent owners.
- Owner Maria Gonzalez moved in 2013 to limit the receiver’s voting authority; the trial court denied her emergency motion; the initial receiver was later discharged and a successor appointed.
- Owners filed a separate 2013 action to compel the Association to follow its governing documents and to prevent delinquent owners (or receivers) from exercising voting rights; the cases were consolidated.
- In November 2014 the court appointed a successor receiver but removed any authority for receivers to vote for delinquent unit owners, granting the Owners the substantive relief they sought.
- The circuit court nonetheless entered a final judgment in favor of the Association, reserved fee issues, and later awarded the Association attorney’s fees and costs (final award: $9,150.00 attorneys’ fees; $488.25 costs). Owners appealed.
- The appellate court reviewed entitlement under three statutes (section 718.1255(1), section 718.303, and section 57.105) and vacated the fee and costs awards, concluding the Owners prevailed on the key issue (eliminating receivers’ voting rights).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Owners) | Defendant's Argument (Association) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether fees are recoverable under § 718.1255 for pursuing a trial de novo after arbitration | Owners argued no trial de novo occurred and they obtained a more favorable court result than the arbitration | Association argued fee statute permits award to prevailing party when judgment less favorable than arbitration | Held: § 718.1255 inapplicable — no trial de novo; Owners’ court result was more favorable, so statute does not support fees for Association |
| Whether Association is the "prevailing party" under § 718.303 (contemplating fee awards in condominium litigation) | Owners argued they prevailed on the significant issue (removal of receivers’ voting power) and thus were the prevailing party | Association argued it obtained a final judgment in its favor and thus was prevailing party entitled to fees | Held: Under § 718.303 the prevailing party is the one who succeeds on significant issues; Owners prevailed and Association not entitled to fees |
| Whether fees may be awarded under § 57.105 for frivolous claims | Owners argued their claims were not frivolous (they obtained relief and court did not make bad-faith findings) | Association argued Owners’ claims lacked merit and warranted sanction | Held: § 57.105 inapplicable — no finding of frivolousness or detailed bad-faith findings required by precedent; fees not justified |
Key Cases Cited
- Trytek v. Gale Indus., Inc., 3 So. 3d 1194 (Fla. 2009) (fee statutes strictly construed; requirement of judgment on trial de novo)
- Shands Teaching Hosp. & Clinics, Inc. v. Mercury Ins. Co. of Fla., 97 So. 3d 204 (Fla. 2012) (prevailing-party analysis for fee awards)
- Huff v. Vill. of Stuart Ass'n, Inc., 741 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (interpretation that a party prevailing in trial de novo is entitled to post-arbitration fees)
- Padow v. Knollwood Club Ass’n, Inc., 839 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (definition of prevailing party as one obtaining significant relief)
- Moritz v. Hoyt Enters., Inc., 604 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 1992) (prevailing-party principles)
- Blue Infiniti, LLC v. Wilson, 170 So. 3d 136 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (standard for awarding fees under § 57.105; claim must be unsupported by facts or law)
- Avis Rent A Car Sys., Inc. v. Newman, 641 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (requirement for detailed findings when awarding fees for bad faith)