5D01-3068 Walls v. Quick Reilly, Inc.

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Florida Fifth District Court » 2002 » 5D01-3068 Walls v. Quick Reilly, Inc.

State: Florida

Court: Florida Fifth District Court

Docket No: 5D01-3068

Case Date: 08/26/2002

Preview:IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2002

RONALD T. WALLS and KIM SKINNER, Appellants, v. Case No. 5D01-3068 QUICK & REILLY, INC., et al., Appellees. / Opinion filed August 30, 2002 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, William C. Gridley, Judge. Neal J. Blaher, Orlando, for Appellants. Keith Olin and Irene Oria of Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Miami, for Appellees. SAWAYA, J. Appellants, Ronald Walls and Kim Skinner, appeal the trial court's amended final order which dismisses with prejudice their amended motion for attorneys' fees. We affirm. Appellants opened both joint and separate brokerage accounts via a brokerage agreement with the Appellees, Quick & Reilly, Inc. and U.S. Clearing Corporation. Quick & Reilly, Inc. is a brokerage firm and US. Clearing Corporation is a firm engaged in clearing trades for Quick & Reilly's customers. The agreement provided that New York law would govern the agreement's terms and the arbitration of any controversy arising therefrom. Although the agreement does not contain a specific section regarding attorney's fees, it does

include a clause that allows Appellees to recover their attorney's fees incurred for any collection action against the account holder. The clause provides: [Appellees] reserve[ ] the right to terminate [Appellants'] account at any time for any reason. Upon termination, [Appellants] will remain liable for any debt balances or deficiencies in [Appellants'] account. [Appellants] will reimburse [Appellees] for the cost of collection of any debt balance or deficiency in connection with any of [Appellants'] accounts, including reasonable attorney's fees and court costs. After opening the accounts, Appellants requested that Appellees buy $72,000 worth of Discovery Zone, Inc. stock, a company emerging from the grips of bankruptcy.1 Prior to Appellants' order being executed, Appellees informed them that the price of the stock had risen from $.30 to $.45 per share. Nevertheless, Appellants agreed to continue with the order, but informed Appellees that they were only willing to buy an amount equal to $72,000. When Appellants received confirmation of the purchase, however, it was discovered that Appellees had purchased considerably more than the requested amount. It was also discovered that Appellees mistakenly purchased Discovery Zone's pre-bankruptcy stock, which had been rendered valueless prior to Appellees' purchase. As a result, Appellants were required to deposit another $22,000 into their account. The Appellants instituted arbitration proceedings against the Appellees alleging breach of contract. The essence of their claim was that the Appellees breached implied duties of care established by the brokerage agreement. An arbitration panel heard Appellants' claim

$2000 worth of stock was for Skinner's individual account; the remainder was to be placed in the joint account. 2

1

and awarded them $81,500 in total damages. Following the award, Appellants filed an amended motion for attorney's fees. The basis for awarding fees, Appellants argued, is the brokerage agreement and the reciprocal attorney's fees provision contained in section 57.105(5), Florida Statutes, which states: If a contract contains a provision allowing attorney's fees to a party when he or she is required to take any action to enforce the contract, the court may also allow reasonable attorney's fees to the other party when that party prevails in any action, whether as plaintiff or defendant, with respect to the contract. Appellees filed a motion to dismiss, arguing, inter alia, that Appellants were not entitled to attorney's fees because New York law does not allow for reciprocal fees.2 The trial court concluded that Florida law applies and that the "limited" attorney's fees provision in the brokerage agreement does not cover the claims advanced by the Appellants. Accordingly, the trial court granted Appellees' motion to dismiss. The issue we must resolve is whether Florida or New York law applies. In resolving this issue, because the brokerage agreement specifically provides that the "law of the State of New York" governs, we must consider the law of that state regarding reciprocal attorney's fees. See Information Tech. & Eng'g Corp. v. Reno, 813 So. 2d 1053 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). In New York, the only statute that grants reciprocal attorney's fees deals with landlord/tenant disputes. See N.Y. Real Prop. Law

Download 5D01-3068 Walls v. Quick Reilly, Inc..pdf