MOTION FOR APPELLATE ATTORNEYS’ FEES DENIED–EVEN THOUGH THE MOTION IDENTIFIED A STATUTORY AND CONTRACTUAL BASIS FOR THE FEES, THE PARTY FAILED TO EXPLAIN HOW THE CITED STATUTE APPLIED TO THE CASE AT ISSUE, OR CITE TO THE RECORD OR OTHERWISE ATTACH A CONTRACT TO ITS MOTION

Lance v. Bright Water Homeowners Association, 49 Fla. L. Weekly D1807 (Fla. 5th DCA Aug. 30, 2024):

The Homeowner’s Association prevailed on the appeal. However, the court denied its motion for appellate attorney’s fees.

A motion for attorneys’ fees must state the grounds on which recovery is sought in accordance with Rule 9.400(b), which requires the party to identify the source of entitlement to an award of fees. Moreover, if the attorneys’ fee motion is based on an agreement in a note or contract, the pertinent document should be attached to the motion or cited from the record.

Here, while the party’s motion identified both a statutory and contractual basis for the award of fees, the statutory basis merely identified a Florida statute related to condominium associations, when the prevailing party was a Homeowners Association. The motion failed to explain how the statute applied.

Additionally, while the prevailing party raised a contractual basis for fees in the motion, it failed to cite to the record or otherwise attach the applicable declaration to its motion, let alone identify the specific provision in the declaration entitling it to fees.

The appellate court admonished that it will not conduct legal research for a party to identify a statute if one exists and that the party should have identified in its motion, nor will it search the record for what appears to be the operative contract and then search the contract for the correct provision.

The take-away from this case is that motions for appellate fees have to be much more specific than courts once seemed to allow. When a party moves for appellate attorney’s fees, that party has the burden to demonstrate the entitlement to fees.