Kirk Taboada v. Rodrigo Chapur Duarte
The Third District affirmed the denial of contractual attorney's fees. Because the court had already held the underlying gambling contract void and unenforceable, the contract conferred no legal rights, including any right to fees under its fee provision. The panel relied on a line of Florida cases holding that an illegal or void contract's fee clause cannot be enforced separately.
Key facts
- Kirk Taboada and Rodrigo Chapur Duarte were parties to a gambling contract that was litigated in Miami-Dade circuit court (L.T. No. 18-32780-CA-01).
- In an earlier appeal, the Third District held that the gambling contract was void and unenforceable. Taboada v. Duarte, 393 So. 3d 775, 778 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024).
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Holdings
- A contract that is void and unenforceable confers no legal rights, so no party can recover attorney's fees under its fee provision. The fee clause falls with the rest of the illegal…
- +1 more holding with a free trial
Why it matters
The opinion is short, but it reaffirms a rule that matters in contract litigation. Once a court declares a contract void or illegal (for example, an unlawful gambling agreement or a contract that violates a statute or… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.