Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, an appeal and cross-appeal arise from a breach of contract related to a Lease Agreement for property used in bridge construction. The appellant leased the property from the appellees, and the court addressed multiple issues stemming from this agreement. The primary legal issue was whether the indemnification clauses within the Lease Agreement entitled the appellees to attorney’s fees. The court ruled that these clauses did not authorize such fees, referencing precedent from Penthouse North Ass’n, Inc. v. Lombardi. Consequently, the appellees were denied attorney’s fees. Furthermore, on cross-appeal, the court found that the trial court's award for future damages lacked sufficient evidentiary support. As a result, the case was remanded for further proceedings to determine the damages related to the removal of remaining equipment foundation on the leased property. The court's decision partially affirmed and reversed the trial court's judgment, with judges Booth, Miner, and Kahn concurring in the ruling.
Legal Issues Addressed
Attorney's Fees in Lease Agreementssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court ruled that the indemnification clauses in the Lease Agreement did not authorize attorney’s fees to the prevailing party.
Reasoning: The court finds that the indemnification clauses do not authorize such fees to the prevailing party, referencing Penthouse North Ass’n, Inc. v. Lombardi, 461 So.2d 1350 (Fla. 1984).
Reversal and Remand for Insufficient Evidencesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court reversed the trial court's ruling on future damages due to insufficient evidence and remanded for a determination of damages related to the removal of remaining equipment foundation.
Reasoning: On cross-appeal, the court reverses and remands for a determination of damages related to the removal of remaining equipment foundation on the property, as the record lacks sufficient evidence to justify the trial court's claim regarding future damages.