We hold, however, that rule 1.730(c) could provide a basis for an award of fees to Lazy Flamingo, and we remand for further proceedings on that issue. Because the settlement agreement did not contain a provision for attorney's fees, the circuit court rightly refused to award fees based on contract. 4th DCA 1998) (explaining that motion to enforce a settlement agreement is grounded on separate facts unrelated to the underlying complaint). The settlement agreement is a distinct contract, separate from the parties' underlying agreements. As for contractual fees, the circuit court correctly looked to the mediated settlement agreement, which was the contract at issue in this enforcement proceeding. We have reviewed the record and determined that the circuit court applied the correct standard when denying fees based on section 57.105. At the outset, we reject the last two grounds. Lazy Flamingo claims entitlement to fees on three different bases: Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.730(c) section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2001) and an attorney's fee clause in the original contracts that gave rise to the underlying litigation.
We reverse the order denying fees and remand for further proceedings.
That refusal is the subject of this appeal. The court enforced the agreement but refused Lazy Flamingo's request for attorney's fees incurred in the enforcement action. When Greenfield and Island did not perform their part of the bargain, Lazy Flamingo moved to enforce the settlement agreement in circuit court. Lenick, Bonita Springs, for Appellees.Īt a mediation, Lazy Flamingo settled its claims against Barry Greenfield and Island Endeavors. Beatty of Grady & Associates, L.P.A., Naples, for Appellant. 2D01-4523.ĭistrict Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District. 834 So.2d 413 (2003) LAZY FLAMINGO, USA, INC., Appellant,īarry GREENFIELD and Island Endeavors, Inc., Appellees.
0 kommentar(er)
