Margaret Green A/K/A Peggy M. Green, Individually, and in Her Capacity as General Partner of Big Oaks Ranch Limited Partnership, and in Her Capacity as Trustee of the Quentin L. Green Living Trust Dated February 19, 2015, and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Quentin L. Green v. Richard B. Green and Raymond M. Green, in Their Capacity as Limited Partners Of, and Derivatively For, Big Oaks Ranch Limited Partnership
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledAugust 14, 2026
Docket5D2025-2267
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
Case No. 5D2025-2267
LT Case Nos. 2017-CP-001518
2020-CA-001953
_____________________________
MARGARET GREEN a/k/a PEGGY
M. GREEN, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN
HER CAPACITY AS GENERAL
PARTNER OF BIG OAKS RANCH
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, et al.,
Appellant,
v.
RAYMOND M. GREEN and
RICHARD B. GREEN, IN THEIR
CAPACITY AS LIMITED PARTNERS
OF, AND DERIVATIVELY FOR, BIG
OAKS RANCH LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, et al,
Appellees.
_____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Seminole County.
William Orth, Judge.
Christopher N. Bellows, Ryan Kocse, and Chazz Freeman, of
Holland & Knight, LLP, Miami, and Alan Lawson, Jason
Gonzalez, Eric Reed, Mathew Gutierrez, and Caroline May Poor,
of Lawson Huck Gonzalez, LLC, Tallahassee, and Meredith Pitts
Smith, of Copeland, Covert and Smith, PLLC, Altamonte
Springs, for Appellant.
T. Todd Pittenger and Kelly J.H. Garcia, of Gray Robinson, P.A.,
Orlando, for Appellees.
August 14, 2026
LAMBERT, J.
Appellant challenges the final judgment awarding attorney’s
fees and court costs to Appellees that were predicated upon the
trial court having determined that Appellees were the prevailing
party in the consolidated cases below. At the time that Appellant
filed this attorney’s fees and costs appeal, her appeal of the
underlying judgments rendered in the consolidated cases was
pending before this court.
We recently issued an opinion in the consolidated merits
appeal affirming the judgments in part, reversing them in part,
and remanding the matter for further consideration. 1 The reversal
has resulted in Appellant now being the prevailing party on a
significant issue in the cases involving the distribution of
homestead property.
Based on this outcome, we reverse the instant final judgment
awarding attorney’s fees and court costs; and the matter is
remanded for reconsideration by the trial court of both the
entitlement and the amount of attorney’s fees and costs to be
awarded. See Marty v. Bainter, 727 So. 2d 1124, 1125 (Fla. 1st
DCA 1999) (“Consequently, an award of attorney’s fees and costs
predicated on a reversed or vacated final judgment also must be
reversed.” (citations omitted)); Corley v. Rivertown, Inc., 863 So. 2d
1244, 1246 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (“The test to determine the
prevailing party provides that the party that prevailed on the
significant issues tried before the court is the prevailing party
entitled to an award of attorney’s fees.” (citing Prosperi v. Code,
Inc., 626 So. 2d 1360, 1363 (Fla. 1993); Moritz v. Hoyt Enters., Inc.,
604 So. 2d 807, 810 (Fla. 1992))); Bd. of Regents v. Winters, 918 So.
1 Green v. Green, 51 Fla. L. Weekly D1519 (Fla. 5th DCA July
24, 2026).
2
2d 313, 315 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (holding that a determination of
the reasonable amount of attorney’s fees usually takes into account
the results obtained in the litigation).
Our reversal is without prejudice to either party appealing a
subsequent final judgment on attorney’s fees and court costs
entered by the trial court following our remand.
REVERSED without prejudice and REMANDED for further
proceedings.
JAY, C.J., and MACIVER, J., concur.
_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and
authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
9.331.
_____________________________
3