"Local news worth reading" — The New York Times
SUBSCRIBE
The independent voice for West Orange County news
One of the key questions that has hung over Windermere’s four-year boathouse lawsuit is whether the residents, having won ownership of the five 100-year-old structures in Palmer Park, would be able to recoup their attorneys fees.
Monday, the Ninth Circuit Court said yes.
Ninth Circuit Court Judge John E. Jordan issued an order, following an April 20 hearing, that stated the 12 current and former owners of the boathouses were entitled to attorneys fees and costs, an “amount of which shall be determined by separate order” at a later date.
Boathouse owners’ legal fees are estimated to be about $800,000. Windermere has spent approximately $750,000 in its attempt to oust its residents from the boathouses and claim them for the town.
The Ninth Circuit Court ruled in October that the boathouses belong to the residents and that the town could not evict them. The town is appealing that verdict in the Sixth District Court of Appeal. An attempt to reach a settlement through mediation in March was unsuccessful, according to a joint report submitted to the court.
TINY.jpg)
Windermere filed its lawsuit against its residents in July 2022, alleging breach of contract, based on a 1986 lease that stated the boathouses would eventually be turned over to the town. In the intervening years, some of the boathouses changed owners, and the new owners pushed back, determined to hold on to their property, which provides access to the Butler Chain of Lakes and adds considerable value to the homes they came with.
According to the order issued earlier this week, Windermere argued for the town to be granted attorneys fees and costs based on Section 19 of the lease agreements at the center of the lawsuit, which states the town is entitled to attorneys’ fees “in event legal action is commenced in a court …”
But the Ninth Circuit Court explained there was never any recession of the lease agreements — the undoing of a contract that restores both parties to their positions before an agreement was made.
“Rather, and probably of critical importance, the Town (sic) terminated the lease agreements prior to commencing this action, conduct which barred any party from seeking rescission,” the court order reads.
According to Florida statute, the Section 19 provision in the lease becomes “reciprocal,” meaning the prevailing party is entitled to attorneys’ fees regardless of which party the provision originally favored. In his order, Jordan stated that there was “no doubt” the boathouse owners were the prevailing party.
The town contends that Section 19 was unenforceable because the court had previously determined the town didn’t own the property it sought to lease, therefore there had never been any “meeting of the minds” between both parties and the leases “were never enforceable.”
But under a ruling by the Florida Supreme Court, when parties enter into a contract that later results in litigation, attorneys’ fees can be recovered under a prevailing-party provision like the one in the lease agreements “even though the contract is unenforceable.”
Since the leases were never rescinded and the town’s termination of the lease agreements prevented rescission from being sought, the court found “that the attorneys’ fees provision in the lease agreements remains valid and enforceable,” enabling the boathouse owners to recover their attorneys' fees.
.jpg)