Legal Opinion

Sandoval v. Banco de Comercio, S.A.

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided September 12, 1991No. 76931PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

McDONALD, Justice.

Pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution, we review Perez Sandoval v. Banco de Comercio, 566 So.2d 828 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), because of conflict with Stockman v. Downs, 573 So.2d 835 (Fla.1991). In Perez Sandoval the district court affirmed a judgment for attorney’s fees and held that it is not necessary to plead entitlement to attorney’s fees in a complaint. In Stockman, on the other hand, we held that a claim for attorney’s fees, whether based on statute or contract, must be pled.

Stockman, however, recognizes an exception to its general rule: “Where a…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Stockman v. DownsSupreme Court of Florida · 1991
  2. Perez Sandoval v. Banco De Comercio, S.A.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1990

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Green v. SUN HARBOR HOMEOWNERS'ASS'NDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1996
  2. RABBIT HILL HOMEOWNERS ASS'N, INC. v. CoryDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2008
  3. Fernandez v. CrespoDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2012

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API