326 So.3d 678
Fla.2021Background:
- 2011 marital dissolution judgment incorporated a Property Settlement and Support Agreement (PSA) containing Paragraph 13: if either party takes legal action for breach, the party found in violation shall pay the prevailing party’s reasonable enforcement expenses, including attorney’s fees.
- Husband filed a motion to compel wife to comply with the PSA; after a hearing the magistrate found against husband and denied husband’s motion and denied wife’s fee request under the PSA on the ground the PSA awards fees only against a party found in violation.
- Wife also sought fees under section 57.105(7), which converts unilateral contractual fee provisions into reciprocal ones; the trial court upheld the magistrate and denied fees under §57.105(7).
- On appeal the Third District reversed only as to §57.105(7), holding the statute applies to prevailing-party provisions and therefore required awarding fees to the wife for successfully defending the motion.
- The Florida Supreme Court granted review to resolve conflict with Sacket v. Sacket and held §57.105(7) does not apply because the PSA’s fee clause is bilateral—entitling “either party” to fees only when the other is found in violation—so the statute, which targets unilateral provisions, cannot be used to expand contractual rights.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Levy) | Defendant's Argument (Einath) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fla. Stat. §57.105(7) applies to the PSA’s attorney’s‑fee clause | The PSA’s clause is bilateral ("either party") and thus §57.105(7), which converts unilateral clauses, does not apply | §57.105(7) operates on any prevailing‑party fee provision to make it reciprocal; it applies and authorizes fees for a prevailing defendant | Court held §57.105(7) applies only to unilateral fee provisions; the PSA is bilateral, so the statute does not apply |
Key Cases Cited
- Sacket v. Sacket, 115 So. 3d 1069 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (held §57.105(7) did not apply to a similar fee clause)
- Ham v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, 308 So. 3d 942 (Fla. 2020) (discusses "unilateral" fee provisions and statutory interpretation)
- Page v. Deutsche Bank Tr. Co. Americas, 308 So. 3d 953 (Fla. 2020) (principle that statutory text controls interpretation)
- Lashkajani v. Lashkajani, 911 So. 2d 1154 (Fla. 2005) (trial courts generally lack discretion to refuse enforcement of contractual fee provisions)
- Azalea Trace, Inc. v. Matos, 249 So. 3d 699 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (District Court case relied on by Third DCA for §57.105(7) application)