From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sidlow v. Bowles Custom Pool

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Apr 9, 2010
32 So. 3d 722 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

Opinion

No. 5D09-1024.

April 9, 2010.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Jose R. Rodriguez, Judge.

James L. Homich, Mt. Dora, for Appellant.

Barry Kalmanson, Maitland, for Appellee.


In this breach of contract action, the prevailing party is entitled to an award of attorney's fees pursuant to the terms of the contract. The trial court has broad discretion to determine which party prevailed on the significant issues in the litigation. Moritz v. Hoyt Enterprises, Inc., 604 So.2d 807 (Fla. 1992). A measure of this test is the "result obtained" at the close of the case. Granoff v. Seidle, 915 So.2d 674, 677 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). "The test is not who was partly at fault in creating the controversy which gave rise to the lawsuit." Sorrentino v. River Run Condo. Ass'n, 925 So.2d 1060, 1065 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).

Applying these principles, we affirm the trial court's order granting Appellee's request for attorney's fees as the party who prevailed on the significant issues of the case. We find no abuse of the broad discretion vested in the trial court when considering such matters.

AFFIRMED.

ORFINGER, TORPY and LAWSON, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Sidlow v. Bowles Custom Pool

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Apr 9, 2010
32 So. 3d 722 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)
Case details for

Sidlow v. Bowles Custom Pool

Case Details

Full title:Neil SIDLOW and Maureen Sidlow, Appellant, v. BOWLES CUSTOM POOL SPAS…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District

Date published: Apr 9, 2010

Citations

32 So. 3d 722 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)