122 So. 3d 390
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Tenney sued Newton and Lion Life defendants in a securities action; November 2008 settlement terms total $1.6 million payable as eight payments: first $200,000 by all defendants, remaining seven by Lion Life defendants; failure to timely pay triggers a Lion Life judgment; the agreement includes a prevailing party fee provision.
- Tenney sought enforcement of the first $200,000 payment and Newton’s $50,000 share; Tenney moved for enforcement to compel Newton to pay $50,000.
- Newton challenged enforceability and argued he had no personal obligation to pay under the settlement; other defendants opposed enforcement, but they later withdrew, leaving Newton as the sole objector.
- Trial court found the settlement enforceable but held Newton was not obligated to pay any amounts; monetary remedy limited to Lion Life defendants; non-monetary terms enforceable; trial court denied both fee motions, describing the result as a bona fide tie.
- On appeal, the issue was whether Newton was the prevailing party for attorney’s fees; the court held Newton prevailed on the key issue—whether he must pay $50,000—and reversed and remanded for fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Newton the prevailing party for attorney’s fees? | Tenney argues Newton did not prevail. | Newton contends he prevailed by avoiding the monetary judgment. | Yes; Newton prevailed on the key issue. |
| Did Newton have a personal obligation to pay any portion of the settlement? | Tenney asserts Newton was obliged under the agreement. | Newton argues the obligation lay only on Lion Life defendants. | No; the trial court erred in denying fees based on lack of personal obligation. |
| Should the trial court have denied fees or awarded them to either party? | Tenney argues no prevailing-party outcome; fees should be denied or split. | Newton argues he should be deemed prevailing despite lack of other relief. | Abuse of discretion; reversed and remanded for fee proceedings consistent with the opinion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Shands Teaching Hosp. & Clinics, Inc. v. Mercury Ins. Co. of Fla., 97 So.3d 204 (Fla.2012) (abuse of discretion standard for fee awards; prevailing party analysis)
- Moritz v. Hoyt Enters., Inc., 604 So.2d 807 (Fla.1992) (prevailing party standard in contract actions)
- Lucite Ctr., Inc. v. Mercede, 606 So.2d 492 (Fla.4th DCA 1992) (one party must prevail in breach of contract actions)
- Port-A-Weld, Inc. v. Padula & Wadsworth Constr., Inc., 984 So.2d 564 (Fla.4th DCA 2008) (ties possible but generally one party prevails in breach actions)
- Animal Wrappers & Doggie Wrappers, Inc. v. Courtyard Distribution Ctr., Inc., 73 So.3d 354 (Fla.4th DCA 2011) (breach-of-contract prevailing-party considerations)
- Hutchinson v. Hutchinson, 687 So.2d 912 (Fla.1997) (compelling circumstances may negate a strict “one party prevails” rule)
- M.A. Hajianpour, M.D., P.A. v. Khosrow Maleki, P.A., 975 So.2d 1288 (Fla.4th DCA 2008) (discussion of prevailing party concepts in contract disputes)