A Florida court recently affirmed a ruling concerning attorney's fees in a lengthy legal battle between Scott Herman and Gary Ewers. The District Court of Appeal of Florida issued its decision on June 3, 2026, following a series of post-judgment motions after a jury trial. This ruling affects the parties involved in the case and clarifies the legal standards for appealing attorney's fees in breach-of-contract disputes.
The case, Scott Herman v. Gary Ewers, was filed under docket number 4D2025-0095. It stems from a breach-of-contract and letter-of-intent action that has been ongoing for seven years. The plaintiffs, Scott Herman and Craig Cooper, appealed three post-judgment orders after a jury trial. Their main contention was that the trial court erred by denying their motions for attorney's fees, which they claimed were warranted due to the defendants' bad faith actions during the trial. The defendants, Gary Ewers, Gerri McGighan-Lukens, and Oxylife Respiratory Services, LLC, cross-appealed, arguing that the trial court incorrectly determined the plaintiffs were the prevailing parties.
Background
The dispute began when Herman and Cooper entered into a contractual agreement with Ewers and his associates regarding certain business dealings. As the case progressed, it became a complex legal battle involving various claims and counterclaims. After a jury trial, the plaintiffs achieved a favorable verdict. However, the defendants contested the outcome and the status of the parties regarding ownership issues.
The trial court ruled on several motions after the jury's verdict, including the plaintiffs' request for attorney's fees based on the defendants' alleged bad faith. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants had acted improperly during the trial, which warranted additional compensation for their legal expenses. However, the trial court denied this motion, leading to the current appeal.
The Ruling
The District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision on both the appeal and the cross-appeal. The court ruled that the plaintiffs' arguments regarding the March 27, 2024, order denying their motion for attorney's fees were not properly before them. The court stated, "Any argument concerning the March 27, 2024, order is time-barred." This means that the plaintiffs failed to raise their concerns about the order within the required timeframe, preventing the court from considering their arguments.
The judges involved in the ruling were May, Gross, and KlingenSmith. They emphasized that the plaintiffs did not address the March 27 order in their appeal of the final judgment issued on April 5, 2024. This oversight effectively barred the court from reviewing the attorney's fees issue related to the defendants' bad faith.
Impact
This ruling clarifies the legal standards for appealing attorney's fees in Florida, particularly in breach-of-contract cases. It underscores the importance of timely addressing all relevant issues during the appeals process. The decision also highlights the complexities involved in determining who qualifies as the prevailing party in litigation.
For the parties involved, the ruling signifies the end of a lengthy legal dispute without the additional attorney's fees they sought. The court's decision may also serve as a precedent for future cases involving similar issues regarding attorney's fees and the timing of appeals.
What's Next
The plaintiffs may consider filing a motion for rehearing, as the court's decision is not final until such motions are resolved. However, details were not available in the court filing regarding any related cases or further actions the parties may take.