Rogers v. Vulcan Manufacturing Co.
District Court of Appeal of Florida
1Opinion of the CourtThomas, J.
In this appeal, we review the trial court’s order finding that Appellant was entitled to attorney’s fees as the prevailing party under a non-compete contract, but awarding him $0. The trial court based its decision on the fact that Appellant did not personally pay his attorney’s fees. Appellant contends this was error and he was entitled to attorney’s fees for two reasons: 1) pursuant to section 542.335(l)(k), Florida Statutes; and 2) pursuant to the terms of the non-compete agreement. We reject Appellant’s first argument because it was not preserved. For the reasons explained below, we agree…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Jenkins v. Eckerd Corp.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 2005
- Aspen v. BaylessSupreme Court of Florida · 1990
- Hough v. HuffmanDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1990
- Hart v. City of GrovelandDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2006
3Cited by4 opinions
- Forthuber v. First Liberty - corrected 11/17/17District Court of Appeal of Florida · 2017
- Babin Builders and Development, Inc. v. Raymond Quinones and Linda Quinones, A&T Stucco, LLC, King's Window & Door Installation, Inc., and Arturo's Framing, Inc.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 2025
- RCK Joint Venture, (A Joint Venture Comprised of River Road Construction, LLC, Creative Homes, LLC and Keystone Homes of TN, INC.) v. Garrison Cove Homeowners Association, A Tennessee Nonprofit CorporationCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 2014
- Santa Rosa Investors, Inc. v. WilsonDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2015