Hutchinson v. Hutchinson
Cases that cite this one
24 later published cases cite this decision.
- Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc. v.96-108 Pine Street LLC v. J.R. Vinagro Corporation J.R. Vinagro Corporation v. 96-108 Pine Street LLC (R.I. 2023)
- Miller v. Jacobs & Goodman (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)
- Mott v. Mott (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)
- Wells Fargo Bank v. Bird (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2018)
- Bonny Snyder and Mark Johnson v. Guardianship of Jacquelyn McCluney Ward (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2025)
- SKYLINK JETS, INC. v. MARTIN KLUKAN (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2020)
- Palm Springs Mile Associates, LTD. v. Ross Dress for Less, Inc. (United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida 2020)
- Kellogg & Kimsey, Inc. A Florida Corporation v. Progressive Plumbing, Inc. (United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida 2019)
- Hough Roofing, Inc. v. Don Facciobene, Inc. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)
- Environ Towers I Condominium Association, Inc. v. Virginia Hokenstrom and Holly Hokenstrom (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)
- Newton v. Tenney (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)
- Animal Wrappers & Doggie Wrappers, Inc. v. Courtyard Distribution Center, Inc. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)
- Trytek v. Gale Industries, Inc. (Fla. 2009)
- Trytek v. Gale Industries, Inc. (Fla. 2008)
- MA HAJIANPOUR, MD v. Khosrow Maleki (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)
- In re Full Gospel Assembly of Delray Beach (United States Bankruptcy Court, Southern District Florida 2007)
- Army Aviation Heritage Foundation & Museum, Inc. v. Buis (United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida 2007)
- Ulbrich v. Coolidge (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)
- Loy v. Loy (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)
- Lasco Enterprises, Inc. v. Kohlbrand (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)
- Black v. BEDFORD AT LAKE CATHERINE ASS'N, INC. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)
- Landry v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)
- Lerner v. Regency Homes, Inc. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)
- Ropes v. JHA Marketing, Inc. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Candyce E. HUTCHINSON, n/k/a Candyce E. Serafin, Appellant,
v.
Richard J. HUTCHINSON, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
*913 Terrence F. Dytrych of Terrence F. Dytrych, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Mark A. DiAntonio and William R.H. Broome of William R.H. Broome, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Candyce Serafin appeals a judgment for child support and alimony arrearages owed by her former husband, Richard Hutchinson. We reverse in part and remand for reconsideration of the award of attorney's fees.
The parties' property settlement agreement provides for the recovery of attorney's fees, costs, and expenses to any party forced to bring an action to enforce the terms of the agreement. Serafin claimed $40,531.92 in child support and alimony arrearages, and the husband claimed various set-offs and laches. The trial court awarded Serafin a total of $24,620.00. The court declined to award attorney's fees to Serafin, reasoning that both parties had won some issues, since the husband had substantial success in his set-off and laches affirmative defenses.
The trial court erred by failing to award attorney's fees to a prevailing party. Where a contract provides attorney's fees for a prevailing party, the trial judge is without discretion to decline to enforce the provision. Rose v. Rose, 615 So.2d 203 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). The test for determining the prevailing party is to determine which party prevailed on significant issues tried before the court. Moritz v. Hoyt Enters., Inc., 604 So.2d 807, 810 (Fla. 1992). See also Prosperi v. Code, Inc., 626 So.2d 1360 (Fla. 1993). We recognize that deference is owed a trial court's discretion in determining who is the prevailing party. However, in a breach of contract action, one party must prevail, absent compelling circumstances. See Lucite Ctr., Inc. v. Mercede, 606 So.2d 492 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); KCIN, Inc. v. Canpro Invs., Ltd., 675 So.2d 222 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).
On remand, the trial court shall reconsider its findings, basing its award on who prevailed on the significant issues in the suit.
As to all other issues raised, we affirm on the authority of Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150 (Fla. 1979).
DELL, STONE and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.