Earlier this month in Levy v. Levy, No. SC20-1195, 2021 WL 4614308 (Fla. Oct. 7, 2021), the Supreme Court of Florida issued a ruling that section 57.105(7) of the Florida Statutes did not apply to the attorney’s fee provision in a divorced couple’s property settlement agreement (“PSA”). Section 57.105(7) of the Florida Statutes converts by law a unilateral prevailing party fee provision into a reciprocal fee provision. Simply put, this means that if a contract provides that only one party has the right to attorney’s fees if it prevails in court, then both parties are granted that right regardless of the unilateral language in the contract. As one might imagine, the ruling against attorney’s fees in Levy sent shivers down the spines of transactional and litigation attorneys alike. Is every attorney’s fee provision in every contract and settlement agreement at risk? Fear spread and some publications even recommended that every fee provision going forward must expressly state which party it is in favor of (defendant or plaintiff)—but that simply is not true. Levy is, in reality, a very limited holding, and most fee provisions are safe from its effect.
First, Levy does not radically change contractual fee provisions in Florida. As the Court stated in its decision, section 57.105(7) of the Florida Statutes applies only to unilateral fee provisions. So, if a contract already includes a reciprocal prevailing party fee provision, then section 57.105(7) does not apply. Therefore, reciprocal attorney’s fee provisions in contracts are not affected by Levy.
Second, and more importantly, the prevailing party in Levy (the ex-wife) was not denied attorney’s fees because section 57.105(7) did not apply, she was denied because she did not satisfy the requirements of the PSA to prove her entitlement to the fee award. The PSA provided, in part, that “the party who is found to be in violation of this Agreement shall pay to the other party who prevails in said action, the prevailing party’s reasonable expenses incurred in the enforcement of this Agreement” (emphasis added). Thus, not only did a party need to prevail to be entitled to its attorney’s fees under the PSA, it must have proved that the losing party also violated the PSA. The prevailing party, though she prevailed, failed to prove a violation of the PSA. With that express contractual limitation in mind, the Court denied the fee award and held that even if section 57.105(7) did apply, it only “levels the playing field, but does not expand it.” In other words, even if the statute could be used in Levy, it could not entitle the prevailing party to attorney’s fees that the other party to the contract would not be entitled to if it had prevailed. The statute could not delete the language from the PSA that required a prevailing party to prove that the losing party violated the PSA.
At the end of the day, the parties in Levy got exactly what they bargained for and the Levy holding should yield the same result for other contracting parties. If a contract provides for reciprocal prevailing party attorney’s fees, then the language of the contract shall control when those fees are awarded (provided that the contract and provision are legal). If, on the other hand, the contract provides for unilateral prevailing party attorney’s fees, then section 57.105(7) of the Florida Statutes will operate to make those fees reciprocal, but the language of the contract will still control when those fees are awarded (provided that the contract and provision are legal). In sum, there is no need to spend the next month staying up late to amend all of your agreements. The only reason Levy may give you pause is if you realize you included language in a contract that might limit an entitlement to fees, such as requiring the prevailing party to also prove that the losing party violated the agreement.
- Associate
Gregg I. Strock is an associate in the Miami office of Shutts & Bowen LLP, where he is a member of the Real Estate Practice Group.
Gregg concentrates his practice in real estate development and finance. He represents national and ...
Search Blog
Follow Us
Recent Posts
- Florida Appellate Court Provides Further Guidance Regarding New Summary Judgment Rule
- SEC Adopts New Cybersecurity Rules
- From 😊 to 💼: Can Emojis Create a Legally Binding Contract?
- HB-3: An Overview of ESG Factors Relating to Public Funds Investment and Financial Industry Impacts
- The Live Local Act Part 2 - Affordable Housing Incentives
- Florida's Live Local Act
- Florida Preliminary Injunctions Must Merely Preserve the Status Quo
- Can a Landlord Obtain Funds Deposited by Tenant in the Court’s Registry?
- Drawn-out negotiations over purchase agreement result in extensive litigation
- In eviction case, trial court wrongly made landlord produce leases with other tenants
Popular Categories
- Litigation
- Contracts
- Landlord-Tenant
- Business
- Litigation (Appellate)
- Supreme Court
- Real Estate Law
- Cyber fraud
- Technology
- Business of Real Estate
- Property Tax
- Development/Land Use
- Cybersecurity
- Data Security
- Conveyances
- Foreclosures
- Estate planning
- Trusts and Estates
- Lease
- Wealth planning
- Business
- Insurance
- Restrictive Covenants
- Title
- Construction
- Promissory Notes
- Regulatory Compliance
- Government
- Creditor's Rights
- Liens and encumbrances
- Compliance
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Eviction
- Bankruptcy
- Ad Valorem Assessments
- Attorneys' Fees
- Appeals
- Attorneys' Fees
- Employment and Labor
- Litigation (Labor & Employment)
- Small Business
- Mortgages
- Loan guaranties
- Consumer Protection
- Regulation
- Maritime
- GAO
- Commercial Brokerage
- Renewal
- email hacking
- Lis Pendens
- Homestead
- Partnerships and LLCs
- Standing
Editors
- Associate
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Associate
- Partner
- Associate
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Associate
- Partner
- Partner
Archives
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- January 2023
- October 2022
- July 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- March 2020
- October 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- May 2019
- February 2019
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- October 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016