recovering nothing from the litigation and the entry of final judgment in favor of HBI in the amount of $ 290,000 .
Following final judgment , HBI and DFI both moved for an award of attorneys ’ fees . HBI asserted it was entitled to attorneys ’ fees pursuant to section 713.29 , Florida Statutes , which allows for recovery of attorneys ’ fees by the prevailing party in an action to enforce a lien or claim against a bond . The trial court denied both parties ’ motions , finding that neither party was the “ prevailing party ” because DFI prevailed on its claims regarding HBI ’ s damage to the hospital and HBI prevailed on its breach of contract claim and its motion for setoff .
On appeal , the Second DCA reversed the trial court finding that the setoff issue was a “ significant issue to be considered when making the prevailing party determination .”
The court found that applying the setoff against DFI ’ s damages resulted in DFI receiving none of the benefit it sought in litigation , even though it prevailed on the hospital damages issue . On the other hand , “ HBI received all of the benefit it sought in the litigation ” because it was relieved of paying any damages to DFI due to the setoff . The court noted that the setoff was “ pivotal to the prevailing party determination ” and that “[ i ] n the absence of the setoff , we would be inclined to agree with the trial court that there was no prevailing party .” However , because the setoff was a significant issue that deprived DFI of the benefit it sought in litigation , HBI was the prevailing party and was entitled to an award of attorneys ’ fees .
JANUARY 2021 • DITCHMEN 11