Kennard Warfield, Jr., Mary Ellen Warfield vs James A. Steward, Terrill L. Stewart
434 F. App'x 777
11th Cir.2011Background
- Warfields bought Sanibel Island home from the Stewarts in 2005; variance limited home size and required alteration within Altered Land Zone.
- Whitney disclosed lower-level permit violations in 1998 and claimed restrictions affected improvements; Whitney unaware of the Variance; Humphrey had a copy of the Whitney Disclosure.
- Stewarts corrected the lower-level noncompliant improvements; Hall and Humphrey (VIP) acted as brokers; VIP’s brokerage contract required disclosure of known facts affecting value but had no attorney’s fees provision.
- Warfields sought to add an addition; Hall did not inform them of the Variance; Warfields learned of the Variance after purchase; Purchase price was $1.4 million; Sales Contract listed VIP/Hall and VIP/Humphrey but not signed by Hall/Humphrey/VIP.
- Paragraph R of the Sales Contract authorized attorney’s fees for the prevailing party arising out of the Contract; Warfields sued for fraud/breach; jury found for Realtors; district court awarded fees; Warfields appeal on several grounds including attorney’s fees; court affirms merits but reverses fee award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Attorney’s fees under Paragraph R apply to this case? | Warfields contend Paragraph R applies because claims arose out of the Sales Contract. | Realtors argue none of Warfields’ claims arose out of the Sales Contract and they were not signatories. | Realtors not entitled to Paragraph R fees; no arising-out relation. |
| Whether Rule 50 post-trial motions were properly raised; JMOL errors? | Warfields assert JMOL after trial based on pre-verdict grounds. | No Rule 50(a) motion was made; 50(b) review improper. | No reversible JMOL; appeal on that basis fails. |
| Whether Instruction 2 on agency misstated Florida law; preserved error? | Warfields argued Instruction 2 improperly treated independent contractors as employees. | Instruction 2 adequately addressed agency; no independent Florida-law rephrase. | No preserved error; any plain-error impact not shown. |
| Judicial estoppel to contest Paragraph R was proper? | Warfields claim estoppel was inappropriate because they never prevailed to trigger estoppel. | District court erred in applying estoppel because Warfields did not succeed on fee request. | Judicial estoppel was misapplied; fees reversal proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ortiz v. Jordan, 131 S. Ct. 884 (U.S. 2011) (cannot appeal denial of summary judgment after full trial; use Rule 50(b))
- Lind v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 254 F.3d 1281 (11th Cir. 2001) (clarifies post-trial JMOL procedure)
- Rand v. Nat’l Fin. Ins. Co., 304 F.3d 1049 (11th Cir. 2002) (limits review when no Rule 50(a) motion; plain-error review available)
- Doe v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 394 F.3d 891 (11th Cir. 2004) (preservation requirements for jury instructions under Rule 51)
- Farley v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 197 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 1999) (plain-error standard for jury instruction review)
- Caufield v. Cantele, 837 So.2d 371 (Fla. 2002) (arising-out-of contract tort inquiry; scope with signatories)
- Schumacher Properties, Inc. v. Rellinger, 911 So.2d 193 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005) (broker entitled to fees when contract-related; relation to contract viability)
- Gibbs Constr. Co. v. S.L. Page Corp., 755 So.2d 787 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000) (strict construction of contractual attorney’s fee provisions)
- Telecom Italia, SpA v. Wholesale Telecom Corp., 248 F.3d 1109 (11th Cir. 2001) (arising-out-of analysis for contract-based claims)