Background
Jose P. Font appealed a final judgment awarding attorney’s fees, costs, and interest to The Homes at Sheridan Ocean Club Homeowners Association under the association’s Declaration and section 720.305(1), Florida Statutes. Font raised five issues on appeal. The underlying case involved the association’s request for injunctive relief, which this court had previously affirmed.
The central dispute in this appeal concerned whether the Declaration’s enforcement provision permitted an award of “fees for fees”—that is, attorney’s fees incurred in litigating the amount of attorney’s fees themselves. The trial court had found the Declaration’s language broad enough to support such an award.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth District affirmed four of Font’s five issues without comment but reversed the portion of the judgment awarding attorney’s fees for litigating the amount of attorney’s fees. The court held that the Declaration’s enforcement provision was not broad enough to encompass “fees for fees.”
Under Florida law, the general rule prohibits awards of attorney’s fees for litigating the amount of fees, except in limited contexts—notably, when a contract is sufficiently broad. The court applied strict construction to the Declaration’s language, which stated that fees could be awarded “in such amount as the court may deem reasonable” in actions brought “pursuant hereto.” The court found this language narrower than provisions in comparable cases that explicitly authorized “fees for fees.” The phrase “pursuant hereto,” read with the “Enforcement” subheading, limits the award to enforcement actions under the Declaration itself, functionally equivalent to phrases previously held insufficient to authorize meta-fees.
The court remanded with instructions for the trial court to remove the fees awarded for litigating the amount of fees, while leaving other aspects of the judgment intact.
Key Takeaways
- HOA declarations must use broad, express language to recover attorney’s fees for fee-dispute litigation; general enforcement provisions are insufficient.
- Florida courts apply strict construction to contractual attorney’s fee provisions, narrowly interpreting limitations on their scope.
- The phrase “pursuant hereto” or “for enforcement of this agreement” does not encompass fees incurred in litigating the amount of fees themselves.
- Provisions under headings like “Enforcement” are construed more narrowly than those appearing under broader headings like “Litigation.”
Why It Matters
This decision provides critical guidance to homeowners associations and other entities seeking to recover “fees for fees” under contractual provisions. It clarifies that standard enforcement clauses in HOA declarations—the typical language found in many declarations—do not authorize such awards. HOAs seeking this protection must draft provisions with explicit, expansive language addressing fee disputes and appellate proceedings.
For litigants challenging HOA fee awards, the decision reinforces that strict construction principles limit associations’ ability to recover secondary fees. The ruling aligns the Fourth District’s approach with other recent Florida decisions, creating a high bar for “fees for fees” provisions absent clear contractual language to that effect.