Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Divorce

Many Florida marital settlement agreements contain a “Prevailing Party” clause. This part of the contract usually states that if one party does not follow the agreement in some way and the other party has to take the delinquent party to court to enforce the agreement, the party who ultimately “wins” in court on that issue is entitled to have the other party pay his or her attorneys’ fees and costs. Sometimes it is not clear to the court whether or not there is a prevailing party and this was the issue in the case Gilbert v. Gilbert, 3D19-858 (Fla. 3d DCA May 20, 2020).

The parties entered a marital settlement agreement which provided that the former husband would pay to the former wife an equalizing payment of $3,100,000.00. This payment was to be made in three installments. The final installment, if missed, incurred interest payments to be made monthly by the former husband until the principle was paid in-full. A promissory note and mortgage was executed by the former husband to secure his obligation. A prevailing party clause was included in the agreement which stated “In the event it becomes necessary for either party to institute any legal action to enforce any of the terms of this Marital Settlement Agreement or its Addendum, the prevailing party in such enforcement action shall be entitled to recover all reasonable attorneys' fees, suit money and costs expended, including appellate attorneys' fees and costs.”

Almost a year and a half after the court entered a final judgment of divorce ratifying the agreement, the former husband defaulted on the third payment. Thereafter he filed a motion with the court to compel the former wife to release the mortgage so that he could borrow against the property. The former wife responded with a motion to enforce because the former husband did not make the monthly interest payments. She also filed a direct response to the former husband’s motion. In both her motion and response, she requested that the court award her attorneys’ fees and costs. Shortly before the hearing on the former wife’s motion to enforce, the former husband paid the past-due interest payment.

The trial court ultimately denied the former wife’s motion as moot since the former husband paid before the hearing. The court also denied the former husband’s motion for lack of jurisdiction. Finally, the trial court denied the former wife’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs related to both motions. The former wife appealed, arguing it was error for the trial court to deny her request for fees when the prevailing party clause in their agreement did not give the court discretion to deny her request.

The appellate court agreed with the former wife, holding the former wife prevailed on all pending motions. The Court reasoned: “At the February 26, 2019 hearing before the trial court, the trial court summarily denied the wife's request without providing a basis for the denial. Although we recognize that deference should be given to the trial court in deciding who is the prevailing party, ‘[i]n a breach of contract action, one party must prevail.’ Green Cos., Inc. v. Kendall Raquetball Inv., Ltd., 658 So. 2d 1119, 1121 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). In the wife's Motion to Enforce action for the husband's breach of the MSA, the trial court did not award attorneys' fees to a prevailing party and did not specifically find that neither party prevailed. Thus, trial court erred in not making findings as to who prevailed on the significant issues in the wife's Motion to Enforce.”

If you need help enforcing the terms of your Florida marital settlement agreement, contact a Miami divorce lawyer for assistance. Through a consultation, learn about how the law may apply to the unique facts of your case.