Full Opinion

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT VILLAGES OF PALM BEACH LAKES PROPERTY OWNERS’ ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellant, v. DANIIL SHOYFER and UNKNOWN TENANT, Appellees. No. 4D2025-3413 [September 23, 2026] Appeal from the County Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Sarah L. Shullman, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502025CC009365XXXAMB. Alterraon Phillips of APLaw, LLC, Royal Palm Beach, for appellant. Steven H. Meyer of Steven H. Meyer, P.A., Winter Park, for appellees. GERBER, C.J. The appellant association filed a breach of contract suit against the appellee multiple-unit owner to recover an unpaid yearly maintenance assessment required under the association’s Declaration. After suit was filed, the owner paid the delinquent assessment in full, plus virtually all interest which had accrued on the delinquent assessment. The association filed a notice of voluntary dismissal, but also filed a motion to recover prevailing party attorney’s fees against the owner pursuant to section 720.305(1), Florida Statutes (2025). The county court entered an order denying the association’s motion, finding “it was not necessary [for the association] to file suit to begin with, as [the owner had] persistently offered the entirety of the amount for which [the association] sued,” despite the fact that the owner had refused to pay the association’s attorney’s fees incurred in its collection effort before the association filed suit. On the association’s appeal from that order, we reverse. The association was legally entitled to demand its attorney’s fees be paid along with the assessment and accrued interest under section 720.3085(3)(b), Florida Statutes (2025), before the association’s collection effort would be considered resolved in full. See § 720.3085(3)(b), Fla. Stat. (2025) (“Any payment received by an association and accepted shall be applied first to any interest accrued, then to any administrative late fee, then to any costs and reasonable attorney fees incurred in collection, and then to the delinquent assessment.”) (emphases added). As the owner’s pre-suit payment offer did not include the association’s attorney fees incurred in collection, the owner’s pre-suit payment offer did not resolve the association’s collection effort in full. Thus, the association was legally entitled to not accept the owner’s pre-suit payment offer, and instead file suit to collect the unpaid assessment, accrued interest, and reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in collection. Post-suit, after the owner had paid the assessment in full, plus virtually all accrued interest, the association was then legally entitled to file and pursue its prevailing party attorney’s fees motion, despite having filed a notice of voluntary dismissal. See Moritz v. Hoyt Enters., Inc., 604 So. 2d 807, 810 (Fla. 1992) (the “prevailing party” for attorney’s fees entitlement purposes is “the party prevailing on the significant issues in the litigation”); Mooney v. Color Le Palais of Boynton Beach Homeowners Ass’n, 419 So. 3d 1078, 1090 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025) (“[T]he Association is the prevailing party because the Homeowners voluntarily complied with the requested relief sought by the Association in the litigation.”). Based on the foregoing, we reverse the county court’s order, and remand with directions to grant the association’s prevailing party attorney’s fees motion, and set an evidentiary hearing to determine the reasonable attorney’s fees amount to be awarded for the association against the owner. Reversed and remanded with directions. LOTT, J., and WEISS, MARLON J., Associate Judge, concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely-filed motion for rehearing. 2