In a recent ruling, the Third District Court of Appeal of Florida affirmed the award of attorney’s fees to Bath & Kitchen Boutique, LLC (BKB) in a breach of contract case involving Alan Kent Little. The court's decision, filed on May 27, 2026, clarifies the circumstances under which attorney’s fees can be awarded in contract disputes, particularly concerning prejudgment writs of garnishment.
This case matters because it sets a precedent regarding the enforceability of attorney’s fees provisions in contracts and the conditions under which parties can recover such fees. The ruling impacts both parties involved, as well as future cases that may involve similar contractual agreements.
Background
The dispute arose from a contract signed in May 2021, where BKB was hired to design and renovate the master bathroom of Little’s home in Miami Beach. When BKB’s work failed to pass final inspection, the parties amended their contract, allowing BKB additional time to complete the work. This amendment included a provision requiring BKB to pay Little $1,000 per day if the work was not completed on time.
In October 2022, Little filed a breach of contract lawsuit against BKB, claiming $67,000 in damages for the delay. BKB counterclaimed, asserting that the $1,000 per day penalty was an unenforceable penalty and that Little had failed to pay for the work completed. Both parties sought attorney’s fees based on the contract’s provisions.
During the proceedings, Little obtained a prejudgment writ of garnishment, which allowed him to secure funds from BKB’s bank accounts while the case was ongoing. However, BKB challenged this writ, leading to further legal disputes. The case eventually reached the appellate court after several motions and hearings.
The Ruling
The Third District Court of Appeal ruled on various aspects of the case, affirming the trial court's award of attorney’s fees to BKB for the litigation of the breach of contract claims and the garnishment proceedings. The court noted, "Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm... the trial court’s award of contractual attorney’s fees to BKB for the time spent litigating the parties’ breach of contract claims."
However, the court reversed the trial court's decision to apply a 1.5 contingency risk multiplier to the attorney’s fees awarded to BKB. The judges determined that the application of the multiplier was not supported by competent, substantial evidence. The ruling was made by Chief Judge SCALES and Judges GORDO and GOODEN.
Impact
This ruling is significant because it reinforces the validity of attorney’s fees provisions in contracts, particularly when one party prevails in litigation related to those contracts. The court's affirmation of the fees awarded to BKB establishes that parties can recover attorney’s fees when they successfully defend against claims arising from contract disputes.
Moreover, the decision clarifies the standards for applying contingency risk multipliers in Florida. The court emphasized that without direct evidence showing that the multiplier was necessary to secure competent counsel, such multipliers should not be applied. This aspect of the ruling may influence how attorney’s fees are calculated in future contract disputes.
What’s Next
The case can potentially be appealed further, although the court’s ruling is currently final unless a motion for rehearing is filed. There are no related cases pending that have been mentioned in the court filing. As it stands, the decision in this case will likely serve as a reference for similar disputes in the future.