Schoenlank v. Schoenlank
128 So. 3d 118
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Scott and Sylma Schoenlank entered a mediated marital settlement agreement in 2007 providing Scott with monthly support/alimony and a $60,000 equitable-distribution payment to Sylma, and included a contractual prevailing-party attorney’s fees clause for enforcement actions.
- Scott filed a petition (Aug. 21, 2009) seeking downward modification of alimony and child support due to a substantial income reduction; he timely paid through Dec. 2009 but later reduced payments unilaterally and failed to pay some equitable-distribution installments.
- Sylma opposed the modification and moved to compel delinquent equitable-distribution payments; Scott admitted some liability but sought set-offs for prior payments and potential overpayments if modification was granted.
- The trial court granted Scott a retroactive downward modification for parts of 2010 and reduced payments prospectively for 2011 onward, but denied modification for all of 2009; it also allowed Scott a set-off, leaving Sylma with a roughly $22,496 recovery on the equitable-distribution claim.
- Scott moved for attorney’s fees under the Settlement Agreement; the trial court denied fees, finding both parties prevailed on significant issues and no single prevailing party existed. Scott appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Scott's Argument | Sylma's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Scott is the prevailing party entitled to contractual attorney’s fees under the Settlement Agreement | Scott asserted he prevailed because he obtained a substantial downward modification and a set-off against the equitable-distribution delinquency | Sylma argued Scott did not clearly prevail overall and that neither party should recover fees because both won and lost significant issues | Court affirmed: neither party was the prevailing party; trial court did not abuse discretion denying attorney’s fees |
Key Cases Cited
- River Bridge Corp. v. Am. Somax Ventures, 76 So.3d 986 (discretionary standard for attorney’s fees awards)
- Centex-Rooney Constr. Co. v. Martin Cnty., 725 So.2d 1255 (trial court discretion review standard)
- Moritz v. Hoyt Enters., Inc., 604 So.2d 807 (prevailing party defined by who prevails on significant issues)
- Shands Teaching Hosp. & Clinics, Inc. v. Mercury Ins. Co. of Fla., 97 So.3d 204 (net-positive judgment not dispositive of prevailing-party status)
- Loy v. Loy, 904 So.2d 482 (fee award not mandatory merely because contract provides for fees; ‘‘tie’’ can justify denying fees)
- KCIN, Inc. v. Canpro Inv., Ltd., 675 So.2d 222 (prevailing-party fee contract principles)
- Folta v. Bolton, 493 So.2d 440 (separate claims may warrant distinct fee awards)
- Chodorow v. Moore, 947 So.2d 577 (fees for entire litigation may be appropriate when claims are factually intertwined)
- Anglia Jacs & Co. v. Dubin, 830 So.2d 169 (determination whether claims are separate is reviewed de novo)