Zurro v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 209 So. 3d 27

Zurro sued Wells Fargo alleging civil theft (Count I), conversion (Count II), and later added breach of contract (Count III); Count I expressly sought attorney's fees, Count III initially did not.
Zurro moved (pretrial) to amend Count III to add an express demand for attorney's fees; Wells Fargo did not oppose those motions and the court did not rule on the fee-request amendment before trial.
At bench trial the court found for Wells Fargo on Count I and for Zurro on Counts II and III; the court said it would consider properly filed fee motions but did not rule on entitlement in its findings.
After trial, the court denied Zurro’s motions to amend the complaint, issued a final judgment that paradoxically both permitted amendment of Count III’s Wherefore clause and denied Zurro any attorney’s fees, and denied her fee claim.
On appeal the Second DCA applied the Stockman waiver exception and concluded Wells Fargo had adequate notice of Zurro’s fee claim and acquiesced, so Zurro was entitled to pursue fees; the court reversed the denial of fees and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Zurro may recover attorney's fees despite not having an explicit fee request in Count III's Wherefore clause at the time of judgment	Zurro argued her complaint and later motions, correspondence, and proposed orders put Wells Fargo on notice of a fee claim and she had moved to amend to add an express request, so Stockman exception applies	Wells Fargo argued fees must be specifically pleaded and that Zurro waived fees because Count III’s Wherefore clause did not request fees	Court held Stockman exception applies: Wells Fargo had notice and acquiesced, so denial of fees was error; reversed and remanded for fee proceedings

Stockman v. Downs, 573 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 1991) (attorney-fee claim must be pled but waiver/notice exception applies)
Brown v. Gardens by the Sea S. Condo. Ass'n, 424 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) (party may be lulled into believing fee claim will be adjudicated)
BMR Funding, LLC v. DDR Corp., 67 So. 3d 1137 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (Stockman pleading requirement construed with Florida rules allowing amendment)
Auglink Commc'ns, Inc. v. Canevari, 932 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (Stockman exception applied where no surprise from failure to plead fees)
American Express Bank Int'l v. Inverpan, S.A., 972 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (distinguishable: mere statement of retained counsel may be insufficient absent amendment)
Fanelli v. HSBC Bank USA, 170 So. 3d 72 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (statement that party retained counsel and is obligated to pay may suffice to give notice)