More RPPTL
Suggested:
Yesterday morning the Fourth District Court of Appeal clarified two important concepts for practitioners: who is a “prevailing party,” particularly in a multi-count complaint context; and, when injunctive relief is appropriate, even though money may compensate for past damages?
THE ISSUES
Coconut Key HOA, Inc. v. Gonzalez, Case Nos. 4D17-739 & 17-1749 (Fla. 4th DCA May 9th, 2018), involved an appeal and a cross-appeal. Gonzalez, a homeowner, sued asserting that the homeowners’ association failed to “properly manage the surface water management system” as required by the “governing documents” and including what the appellate court stated were assertions regarding the HOA Act. Count one sought a money judgment for damages allegedly resulting from the flooding of her property. Count two sought injunctive relief relating to the homeowners’ association’s alleged management failures, including failing to address alterations.
Three distinct trial court decisions provided the foundations for the issues on appeal.
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Reciting the standard of appellate review as being discretionary, the appellate court cited three elements forming the statutory basis for legal and equitable relief in §720.305(1):
As to the first element, the jury found a violation of the governing documents. Addressing the second element, evidence existed that flooding could only be resolved if the Association acted. For the third element, past and future damages were differentiated. While compensatory damages were potentially available, they would only address past damage and only an injunction would prevent future harm. Nevertheless, the potential of damages for future diminished property value did not negate the lack of an inadequate remedy at law.
ATTORNEYS’ FEES
Rejecting the “no money judgment, no fees” approach to prevailing party attorneys’ fees, the appellate court focused upon the “prevailing party” language in §720.305(1).
Generally, the standard of review of an entitlement to attorney’s fees is an abuse of discretion; however, where the denial of entitlement was based not on a factual determination, but on the trial court’s interpretation of a legal issue, specifically a “prevailing party” designation, a de novo standard of review applies. The trial court is subject to reversal if the decision is not supported by “logic and justification for the result and founded on substantial, competent evidence.” As a corollary, the court recounted that when a “prevailing party” fee statute applies, reasonable attorneys’ fees must be awarded to the party that “won on the significant issues.” The trial court’s focusing on damages, or the lack thereof, was in error.
In a learning moment on the way to the holding, the appellate court reminded counsel that when a court must interpret the meaning of a legal term that is not otherwise defined by contract or statute, the court will often follow the definition contained in Black’s Law Dictionary. Corresponding to this point, Black’s is quoted as defining “prevailing party” as “[a] party in whose favor a judgment is rendered, regardless of the amount of damages awarded.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1154 (8th ed., 2004) (emphasis in quotation added from original).
Applying Black's “prevailing party” definition, the appellate court held that:
COSTS
Regarding court costs, the trial court has no discretion but to award costs to the “prevailing party.” More on what should have been a straightforward matter is below.
CONCLUSION
Concluding, the trial court’s decision granting the injunction was affirmed and the decision denying attorneys’ fees and costs was reversed and remanded for an award not only for the injunction claim but also for the damages claim.
MORE THOUGHTS FOR THE PRACTITIONER
While the decision provides helpful explanations, there are some areas that may leave you with contradictory impressions and concerns.
Michael J. Gelfand
Past Chair
Real Property, Probate and Trust Law Section
of The Florida Bar
Click www.RPPTL.com for Breaking News
About Florida’s Largest Substantive Law Section!
______________________________________
Note: This article is not legal advice. Statements and comments made are not those of The Florida Bar or the RPPTL Section
© 2018 Michael J. Gelfand
Florida Bar Board Certified Real Estate Attorney
Florida Supreme Court Certified Mediator:
Civil Circuit Court & Civil County Court
Fellow, American College of Real Estate Attorneys
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail