Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Divorce
Many Florida marital settlement agreements contain a prevailing party clause. This clause generally states that if there is litigation to enforce the agreement, the prevailing party will be awarded attorney’s fees and costs. This was an issue in the case Weber v. Weber, 6D2024-2778 (Fla. 6th DCA March 27, 2026).
The parties entered a marital settlement agreement (MSA) in their divorce proceedings which distributed their assets. One of those assets concerned real property that was divided into two parts - the dry land part with the residence was transferred to a trust during the marriage, and the submerged part of the land was not. The agreement said nothing about this property. After the divorce, the trustee sought to sell the property, and discovered the submerged part of the land had not been transferred to the trust, thereby affecting title and the ability to complete the contract for sale. When the former wife refused to execute a deed transferring the property in full to the trust, the former husband filed a motion to enforce the MSA, arguing the agreement contained a clause stating the parties agreed to “execute such other documents as are necessary to carry out the terms of the MSA and the Final Judgment”. The former wife successfully defended against this motion and the trial court reserved on her request for attorney’s fees and costs. Ultimately, the former wife’s request for fees was denied, and she appealed.
The appellate court noted “A prevailing party is one who succeeds ‘on any significant issue in litigation which achieves some of the benefit the parties sought in bringing suit.’” (internal citation omitted). The court held “The sole issue raised in the Former Husband’s motion to enforce was whether the Former Wife violated the MSA by not transferring her interest in the submerged land to the Trust. The trial court rejected this claim entirely, ostensibly because the MSA said nothing about the Boca Grande property. The Former Wife, consequently, prevailed on a significant issue and, as a result, the trial court abused its discretion by denying her request for attorney fees and costs under the MSA.” The court also noted “That the Former Husband may obtain the relief he sought in his motion to enforce through another cause of action does not lessen the legal significance of the Former Wife’s substantive victory over the Former Husband’s claim that she violated the MSA. Therefore, the Former Wife’s victory was not simply procedural, leaving her exposed to the same claim; it was a complete victory over that claim, which triggered her entitlement to attorney fees and costs under the MSA.”
Nothing in this article is legal advice. Schedule your consultation with a Miami family law attorney for advice about your case.