Background
Kirk Taboada and Rodrigo Chapur Duarte were parties to a gambling contract. In an earlier appeal, the Third District held that the agreement was void and unenforceable. Taboada v. Duarte, 393 So. 3d 775, 778 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024).
Taboada later sought attorney’s fees under a provision in that same agreement. The Miami-Dade Circuit Court declined to award fees, and Taboada appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Third District affirmed. It held that Taboada could not recover attorney’s fees under a contract already determined to be void and unenforceable.
A void and illegal contract creates no enforceable legal rights, including a contractual right to attorney’s fees. The court rejected Taboada’s contrary arguments and left the trial court’s denial of fees in place.
Key Takeaways
- A party cannot enforce an attorney’s-fee clause contained in a void and unenforceable contract.
- The prior ruling that the gambling agreement was void foreclosed a fee award under that agreement.
- Contractual attorney’s fees stand or fall with the enforceability of the contract provision on which they rely.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that attorney’s-fee provisions are not independently enforceable when the underlying agreement is void. Litigants cannot preserve a contractual fee remedy while disavowing, or being unable to enforce, the rest of the illegal agreement.