Kirk Taboada v. Rodrigo Chapur Duarte
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledSeptember 9, 2026
Docket3D2025-2125
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed September 9, 2026.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D25-2125
Lower Tribunal No. 18-32780-CA-01
________________
Kirk Taboada,
Appellant,
vs.
Rodrigo Chapur Duarte,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Mavel Ruiz,
Judge.
Navarro – Attorneys at Law, and Luis F. Navarro; Guy G. Spiegelman,
for appellant.
TA PLLC, and Alexander A. Salinas, and Alexander G. Plansky, for
appellee.
Before FERNANDEZ, LOGUE and GOODEN, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Our Court previously held that the gambling contract between the
parties was void and unenforceable. See Taboada v. Duarte, 393 So. 3d
775, 778 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024). Now, Appellant Kirk Taboada is challenging
the trial court’s refusal to award him attorney’s fees under that very same
contract. Because a void and unenforceable contract confers no legal rights,
Taboada is not entitled to attorney’s fees thereunder. See Stewart v. Stearns
& Culver Lumber Co., 48 So. 19, 25 (Fla. 1908) (“The courts will not in
general aid either party to enforce an illegal agreement. . . .); Harris v.
Gonzalez, 789 So. 2d 405, 409 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (“A contract which
violates a provision of the constitution or a statute is void and illegal, and, will
not be enforced in our courts.”); Carnival Leisure Indus. Ltd. v. Arviv, 655 So.
2d 177, 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (“Because the statute declares any such
agreement ‘void and of no effect,’ the statute invalidates the nonseverable
provision for attorney’s fees.”); Blosser v. AADCO Enters., Inc., 526 So. 2d
126, 127 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988) (“If appellee could not recover damages from
appellant for breach of this ‘contract’ because it was not ‘effective and
enforceable’ or was ‘null and void’, then likewise, and for the same reason,
appellant cannot recover attorney's fees from appellee by enforcing one
provision in the same ‘contract.’”); Edwards v. Trulis, 212 So. 2d 893, 896
(Fla. 1st DCA 1968) (“And when a contract or agreement, express or implied,
2
is tainted with the vice of such illegality, no alleged right founded upon the
contract or agreement can be enforced in a court of justice.”). We reject
Taboada’s arguments otherwise. Therefore, we affirm.
Affirmed.
3