Narrative Opinion Summary
The court affirms the denial of attorney’s fees under section 57.115, Florida Statutes (1991), which permits discretionary awards to a judgment creditor for fees related to executing a judgment. After reviewing the record and hearing transcript, the court finds no abuse of discretion by the trial court. The appellant also claims entitlement to fees based on a contract; however, this argument was not presented in the motion for fees or during the hearing. Furthermore, the relevant contractual provision does not justify an award of post-judgment attorney's fees, as established in Florida Pottery Stores v. American National Bank, 578 So.2d 801 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Judges HERSEY, GUNTHER, and WARNER concur.
Legal Issues Addressed
Contractual Provision for Post-Judgment Attorney's Feessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court noted that the relevant contractual provision did not support an award of post-judgment fees, referencing established precedent.
Reasoning: Furthermore, the relevant contractual provision does not justify an award of post-judgment attorney's fees, as established in Florida Pottery Stores v. American National Bank, 578 So.2d 801 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).
Discretionary Award of Attorney's Fees under Florida Statutes Section 57.115subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court upheld the trial court's decision to deny attorney's fees, indicating there was no abuse of discretion in the trial court's judgment.
Reasoning: The court affirms the denial of attorney’s fees under section 57.115, Florida Statutes (1991), which permits discretionary awards to a judgment creditor for fees related to executing a judgment. After reviewing the record and hearing transcript, the court finds no abuse of discretion by the trial court.
Waiver of Contractual Fee Claimssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellant's claim for attorney's fees based on a contractual provision was not considered because it was not raised in the initial motion for fees or during the hearing.
Reasoning: The appellant also claims entitlement to fees based on a contract; however, this argument was not presented in the motion for fees or during the hearing.