Lee County, Florida v. Dean Wish, LLC
After Lee County obtained summary judgment on a Bert Harris Act claim because Dean Wish sold the property and was no longer the statutory 'property owner,' the Second District denied the County appellate fees under section 70.001(6)(c)2. The trial court treated that denial as law of the case and refused trial-level fees. The Sixth District reversed, parsing the Second District's order (including its 'cf.' signals to Diamond Aircraft and Cacho) and holding that the appellate fee denial rested on the Act's inapplicability during the appeal only, leaving open entitlement to fees for the pre-judgment trial court period.
Key facts
- Lee County sought attorney fees under the Bert Harris Act's fee-shifting provision (section 70.001(6)(c)2.) against Dean Wish, LLC after obtaining summary judgment on Lee County's claim that Dean Wish was no longer the statutory 'property owner' and thus lacked standing.
- The Second District Court of Appeal denied Lee County's request for appellate-level attorney fees, and the trial court treated that denial as law of the case and refused to award trial-level fees.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This is a useful decision for litigators fighting over the preclusive scope of appellate fee orders: it holds that a bare appellate fee denial is not automatically law of the case as to trial-level fees and directs… — full analysis with a trial
Read the full opinion, holdings & search — free for 30 days
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision — in your hands.
- Search every tracked Florida decision in seconds
- Save, tag & file the cases that matter into your own library
- Read the full plain-English analysis and holdings
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.