fairest test in Florida

2024Thus, “the fairest test to determine who is the prevailing party is to allow the trial judge to determine from the record which party has in fact prevailed on the significant issues tried before the court.” 7 Id.

2024The court explained that “the fairest test to determine who is the prevailing party is to allow the trial judge to determine from the record which party has in fact prevailed on the significant issues tried before the court.” Id.

2020However, the court also quoted Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983), for the proposition that “the test is whether the party ‘succeed[ed] on any significant issue in 5 litigation which achieves some of the benefit the parties sought in bringing suit.’” Id. at 809–10.

2020However, the court also quoted Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983), for the proposition that “the test is whether the party ‘succeed[ed] on any significant issue in 5 litigation which achieves some of the benefit the parties sought in bringing suit.’” Id. at 809–10.

1997In Prosperi , our supreme court explained that Moritz requires a flexible application *719 of prevailing party attorney's fees: "The fact that the claimant obtains a net judgment is a significant factor but it need not always control the determination of who should be considered the prevailing party." Prosperi, 626 So.2d at 1363 .

1995See also Prosperi v. Code, Inc., 626 So.2d 1360 (Fla. 1993) (a flexible approach in determining the prevailing party is required — the trial court must have discretion to consider the equities and determine which party has in fact prevailed on the significant issues).

2022The general rule in Florida is that “when a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses an action, the defendant is the prevailing party.” Thornber v. City of Fort Walton Beach, 568 So. 2d 914, 919 (Fla. 1990).

2011Hajianpour, M.D., P.A. v. Khosrow Maleki, P.A., 975 So.2d 1288, 1289-90 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (discussing the “significant issues” test as the way to determine the prevailing party for the purpose of an attorney’s fees award).

2005See *962 Moritz v. Hoyt Enters., Inc., 604 So.2d 807, 810 (Fla.1992); see also Musselwhite v. Charboneau, 840 So.2d 1158, 1160 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).