Cases from cite.case.law:

HHA BORROWER, LLC. v. W. G. YATES SONS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,, 266 So. 3d 1267 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . instructions to enter an order determining that neither party was the prevailing party under section 713.29 . . .

SCHOOL BOARD OF BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, v. C. B. J. A. B. a, 315 F. Supp. 3d 1312 (S.D. Fla. 2018)

. . . (Fla. 2nd DCA 2014) (holding that arbitrator could not award attorneys' fees under Florida Statute 713.29 . . .

J. SCHLESINGER, v. JACOB,, 240 So. 3d 75 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . See, e.g., § 713.29, Fla. Stat. . . .

BAUER v. READY WINDOWS SALES SERVICE CORPORATION,, 221 So. 3d 761 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . move for appellate attorney’s fees pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.400 and section 713.29 . . . Section 713.29 provides: In any action brought to enforce a lien or to enforce a -claim against a bond . . . The Bauers and Ready Windows each argue that they are the prevailing party under section 713.29. . . . Both parties moved for fees pursuant to section 713.29. The trial court applied the. . . . Here both parties- moved for an award of appellate attorney fees pursuant to section 713.29 following . . .

TRUMP ENDEAVOR LLC, v. FERNICH, INC. d b a, 216 So. 3d 704 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . and subsequently entered final judgment awarding attorney’s fees to Paint Spot pursuant to section 713.29 . . .

NEWMAN, v. GUERRA,, 208 So. 3d 314 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . Court has applied the “significant issues” test to statutory construction lien matters under section 713.29 . . . the prevailing party entitled to an award of fees in construction lien actions brought under section 713.29 . . . The Florida Supreme Court recognized the equitable nature of attorney’s fees awards under section 713.29 . . .

BEST DRYWALL SERVICES, INC. R. v. BLASZCZYK, 207 So.3d 271 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . See § 713.29, Fla. Stat. (2010). . . .

CHOW, a. k. a. Mr. Mr. a MC LLC, a v. CHAK YAM CHAU, LLC, a LLC,, 640 F. App'x 834 (11th Cir. 2015)

. . . . § 713.29; Prosperi, 626 So.2d at 1362. . . . to the claimant because an unsuccessful lien claimant cannot recover attorney’s fees under section 713.29 . . . defendant is not the prevailing party and is not entitled to recover attorney’s fees under section 713.29 . . . “Although the statutory language in section 713.29 ..., providing for attorney’s fees in mechanic’s lien . . . Gale Indus., Inc., 3 So.3d 1194, 1202 (Fla.2009) (discussing attorney’s fees under § 713.29). . . .

JOMAR PROPERTIES, L. L. C. v. BAYVIEW CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION,, 154 So. 3d 515 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . DCA 1994) (“As the prevailing party, [the contractor] is entitled to attorney’s fees under section 713.29 . . .

M. SNELL v. MOTT S CONTRACTING SERVICES, INC., 141 So. 3d 605 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . county court further found that Mott’s Contracting was not entitled to attorney’s fees under section 713.29 . . . validity of the claim of lien and that Mott’s Contracting was not entitled to fees pursuant to section 713.29 . . . decision of the county court, holding that Mott’s Contracting took the requisite action under section 713.29 . . . the law when it determined that Mott’s Contracting is entitled to attorney’s fees pursuant to section 713.29 . . . Importantly, however, section 713.29, which we must read in tandem with section 713.22, distinguishes . . .

GLOBAL XTREME, INC. v. ADVANCED AIRCRAFT CENTER, INC., 122 So. 3d 487 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . (“Advanced”) pursuant to sections 57.105 and 713.29, Florida Statutes (2010). . . . made pursuant to section 713.29. . . . Section 713.29 is contained in Part I, Chapter 713, “Construction Liens.” . . . Advanced sought attorney’s fees under section 713.29 for a lien it filed pursuant to sections 713.58 . . . Therefore, the trial court erred in finding entitlement to attorney’s fees pursuant to section 713.29 . . .

N. KRITIKOS, Co. LLC, v. T. ANDERSEN, T. d b a ARCS, 125 So. 3d 885 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . Appellate attorney’s fees and costs shall be awarded to the prevailing party under section 713.29, Florida . . .

O. WOLFE, II, H. v. CULPEPPER CONSTRUCTORS, INC. v. O. II, H., 104 So. 3d 1132 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . contends that the trial court should have awarded it attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to either section 713.29 . . . Section 713.29 provides: In any action brought to enforce a lien or to enforce a claim against a bond . . .

GMPF FRAMING, LLC, v. VILLAGES AT LAKE LILY ASSOCIATES, LLC,, 100 So. 3d 243 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . Villages at Lake Lily Associates, LLC was entitled to an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to section 713.29 . . . Villages filed its motion for entry of a final judgment of attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to section 713.29 . . . that Villages was entitled to recover attorney’s fees and costs as the prevailing party under section 713.29 . . . Here, Villages sought attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to section 713.29, which provides for an award . . . Although section 713.29 applies only to lien claims, GMPF still had pending claims for quantum me-ruit . . .

CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, v. A. W. BAYLOR VERSAPANEL- PLASTERING, INC., 97 So. 3d 937 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . The arbitration panel had declined to award either party attorney’s fees under section 713.29, Florida . . . We reverse because we conclude that section 713.29 is the controlling statute in this case. . . . Section 713.29. 2. . . . After declining to award attorney’s fees under section 713.29, the arbitrators concluded that they were . . . Section 713.29.” The trial court should have denied Baylor’s motion for attorney’s fees. . . .

SEALY, v. PERDIDO KEY OYSTER BAR AND MARINA, LLC, a, 88 So. 3d 366 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . have filed motions in this court seeking an award of appellate attorney’s fees pursuant to section 713.29 . . .

SOUTH FLORIDA COASTAL ELECTRIC, INC. v. TREASURES ON BAY II CONDO ASS N, INC., 89 So. 3d 264 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . are insufficient to pay Plaintiffs claim, for a deficiency judgment, and attorney fees pursuant to § 713.29 . . .

SOARES DA COSTA CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, LLC, v. ALTA MAR DEVELOPMENT, LLC LLC, 85 So. 3d 1172 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . determining that Tarragon Development Corporation was entitled to attorneys’ fees pursuant to section 713.29 . . . confirm the arbitration award, Tarragon sought prevailing party attorneys’ fees pursuant to section 713.29 . . .

AGUILAR, v. KOHL S DEPARTMENT STORES, INC. CMS,, 68 So. 3d 356 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . . § 713.29, Fla. . . .

D. SHEPPARD L. v. M R PLUMBING, INCORPORATED, a, 82 So. 3d 950 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . (M & R) on the purported authority of section 713.29, Florida Statutes (2008). . . . All parties filed motions seeking attorneys’ fees, both sides relying on section 713.29, Florida Statutes . . . The trial court ruled that M & R was entitled to attorneys’ fees under section 713.29 on the lien foreclosure . . . Here the trial court concluded that section 713.29 provided statutory authority for an award of attorneys . . . proof of a valid contract, finding M & R entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to section 713.29 . . .

TIERRA HOLDINGS, LTD, v. MERCANTILE BANK, a, 78 So. 3d 558 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . Fixel’s argument and declined to extend the definition of “prevailing party” in the context of section 713.29 . . . Associates was based on the underlying policy of section 713.29 to ‘encourage settlement of disputes . . . Associates was required because to hold otherwise would have defeated the goal section 713.29 was intended . . .

LANGFORD, v. PARAVANT, INC., 48 So. 3d 75 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . These cases reached the same holding in interpreting a similar provision of the Florida Statutes, § 713.29 . . .

MMII, INC. v. SILVESTER, 42 So. 3d 876 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . The remaining issue concerns the award of attorney’s fees to buyers under § 713.29. . . .

GACCIONE, v. L. DAMIANO LLC., 35 So. 3d 1008 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . fees are recoverable as costs, such as here under section 83.48, Florida Statutes, or under section 713.29 . . .

KELSEY, v. METRO CONSTRUCTION,, 31 So. 3d 252 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . In addition, according to section 713.29, Florida Statutes (2001): In any action brought to enforce a . . . Under section 713.29, he is entitled to recover a reasonable fee for the services of his attorney for . . .

CROWN CUSTOM HOMES, INC. v. SABATINO, 18 So. 3d 738 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . for the purpose of determining fees “as part of the prevailing party’s costs,” pursuant to section 713.29 . . .

J. VOSE D. v. GULFSIDE CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC., 12 So. 3d 322 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . The Voses argued they were entitled to fees and costs under section 713.29, Florida Statutes (2007), . . . an eviden-tiary hearing to determine whether the Voses are entitled to attorneys’ fees under section 713.29 . . .

M. HINGSON, v. MMI OF FLORIDA, INC. a L. C. a, 8 So. 3d 398 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . is the prevailing party for the purposes of awarding fees on a statutory claim brought under section 713.29 . . .

J. TRYTEK, v. GALE INDUSTRIES, INC., 3 So. 3d 1194 (Fla. 2009)

. . . issues” test of Prosperi to evaluate entitlement to prevailing party attorneys’ fees under section 713.29 . . . The Fifth District concluded that under section 713.29, a contractor who obtains any monetary judgment . . . Section 713.29 was first enacted by the Legislature in 1963. Ch. 63-135, § 1, Laws of Fla. . . . Stat. (2005), nor does a definition appear in section 713.29. . . . Our conclusion is consistent with our precedent and section 713.29. . . .

A. NIEHAUS, v. BIG BEN S TREE SERVICE, INC., 982 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . See § 713.29, Florida Statutes (2006). We GRANT the writ and QUASH the circuit court’s order. . . .

PARROT COVE MARINA, LLC, v. DUNCAN SEAWALL DOCK BOATLIFT, INC., 978 So. 2d 811 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . appellate attorney’s fees pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.400(a)-(b) and section 713.29 . . .

LANGLEY, v. KNOWLES, 958 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . . § 713.29, Fla. Stat. (2004). . . . .

GALE INDUSTRIES, INC. v. J. TRYTEK L., 960 So. 2d 805 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . prevailing parties for the purpose of the trial court’s award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to section 713.29 . . . the “prevailing party” and filed cross-motions to tax attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to section 713.29 . . . thereafter the high court addressed the effect of Moritz on the prevailing party language of section 713.29 . . . As applied, the rule automatically precludes the owner from recovering attorney’s fees under section 713.29 . . . In cases of this variety, the lienor is the prevailing party for purposes of section 713.29. . . . judgment against a property owner in an action to enforce a construction lien brought pursuant to section 713.29 . . .

HIGHTOWER GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. v. HBE- FLORIDA CORPORATION,, 954 So. 2d 57 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . with this court seeking an award of appellate attorney’s fees pursuant to the provisions of section 713.29 . . .

ALPAUGH PLUMBING SUPPLY OF TAMPA, INC. a v. THE FEE- WALTERS CORPORATION, a N., 947 So. 2d 682 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . The plaintiff sought attorneys’ fees under section 713.29, Florida Statutes (2003). 883 So.2d at 376. . . .

PENNINGTON ASSOCIATES, INC. v. EVANS,, 932 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . agree that the prevailing party is entitled to an award of its attorney’s fees pursuant to section 713.29 . . .

MASHAN CONTRACTORS, INC. v. W. BAILEY F. V. II, H., 922 So. 2d 330 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . See § 713.29, Fla. Stat. (1999). . . . Section 713.29 provides, “In any action brought to enforce a [construction] lien ... under this part . . . in part, reversed in part, and remanded for an award of attorney’s fees to the owners under section 713.29 . . .

SULLIVAN, v. J. GALSKE J., 917 So. 2d 412 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . Sullivan was entitled to attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract and pursuant to section 713.29, Florida . . . that “in order to be a prevailing party entitled to the award of attorney’s fees pursuant to section 713.29 . . . Sullivan is not entitled to fees pursuant to section 713.29 under the reasoning in C.U. Associates. . . . In addition to the claim for attorneys’ fees pursuant to section 713.29, Mr. . . . the Florida Supreme Court rejected an argument that the definition of “prevailing party” in section 713.29 . . .

MICHAEL DAVID IVEY, INC. v. SALAZAR, 903 So. 2d 329 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . We also conclude that Ivey was entitled to attorney’s fees pursuant to section 713.29, Florida Statutes . . . errs in not finding the claimant the prevailing party and awarding attorneys’ fees pursuant to section 713.29 . . . 836 So.2d 1031, 1033 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (“A party is entitled to recover fees pursuant to section 713.29 . . . decisions, we conclude that the trial court was required to award Ivey attorney’s fees pursuant to section 713.29 . . . Section 713.29, Florida Statutes, provides: In any action brought to enforce a lien or to enforce a claim . . .

JACK BRIER GENERAL CONTRACTOR, INC. a v. V. SKINNER D., 891 So. 2d 1194 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . plaintiff below, appeals an order of the circuit court awarding it attorneys’ fees pursuant to section 713.29 . . .

J. SHARRARD, v. LIGON, 892 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . must revisit the parties’ claims for attorney’s fees and costs as the prevailing party under section 713.29 . . .

DOUG HAMBEL S PLUMBING, INC. v. V. CONWAY,, 883 So. 2d 375 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . On July 11, 2003, the plaintiff filed a motion for attorney’s fees, pursuant to section 713.29, Florida . . . The basis upon which the plaintiff sought fees was section 713.29, Florida Statutes (2003), which provides . . . Therefore, the court could not award fees under section 713.29 at that time. . . .

HIGHLANDS CARPENTRY SERVICE, INC. v. CONNONE, T. M. d b a, 873 So. 2d 611 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . . § 713.29. . . .

WINNER FL, LLC, v. APAC- FLORIDA, INC., 869 So. 2d 631 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . FEES Both parties have requested an award of attorneys’ fees as a prevailing party pursuant to section 713.29 . . .

CORLEY v. RIVERTOWN, INC., 863 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . The statutory basis for an award of attorney’s fees in the instant case derives from section 713.29, . . . 836 So.2d 1031, 1033 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (“A party is entitled to recover fees pursuant to section 713.29 . . .

PENA- ALUM GLASS MIRROR, v. NATIONWIDE TERMINALS, INC., 864 So. 2d 461 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . The owner sought attorney’s fees against Pena-Alum under section 713.29, Florida Statutes, which provides . . .

GOODMAN, v. TECTONICS UNLIMITED, INC. a, 861 So. 2d 485 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . Appellate Procedure 9.400(c), appellants seek review of an award of appellate attorney’s fees under section 713.29 . . .

SARKIS, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY,, 863 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 2003)

. . . Stat. (1997) (awarding reasonable attorney’s fees in actions to recover milk bottles); 713.29, Fla. . . .

L. ROCK L. v. PRAIRIE BUILDING SOLUTIONS, INC. a, 854 So. 2d 722 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . prevailing party in the hen action, they are entitled to recover their attorney’s fees pursuant to section 713.29 . . .

MICHNAL, v. PALM COAST DEVELOPMENT, INC., 842 So. 2d 927 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . . § 713.29, Fla. Stat. (2001). Michnal’s prayer for appellate attorneys’ fees is denied. . . .

OREGON PARTNERS NO. LTD. v. KLAUDER NUNNO ENTERPRISES, INC., 837 So. 2d 1104 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . K & N sought fees under section 713.29, Florida Statutes (2001), which requires an award in “any action . . .

DCC CONSTRUCTORS, INC. v. YACHT CLUB SOUTHEASTERN, INC., 839 So. 2d 731 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . (“DCC”) appeals a final judgment denying its claim for attorneys’ fees under Section 713.29, Florida . . . finding DCC prevailed in its enforcement of a lien and is thus entitled to attorneys’ fees under Section 713.29 . . . The trial court found that DCC was not entitled to attorneys’ fees under Section 713.29, because DCC . . . defenses and counterclaims, it was entitled to attorney’s fees as the prevailing party under Section 713.29 . . . Section 713.29 provides: In any action brought to enforce a lien or to enforce a claim against a bond . . .

CDI CONTRACTORS, LLC. v. ALLBRITE ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS, INC., 836 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . The trial court then awarded attorney’s fees to Allbrite pursuant to section 713.29, and denied the same . . . A party is entitled to recover fees pursuant to section 713.29 if successful in prosecuting or defending . . . the Cinema case Rouse is entitled to an attorney fee award because it prevailed on the lien claim. § 713.29 . . . claim on which CDI prevailed was a breach of contract claim, it is not entitled to fees under section 713.29 . . . Rouse is entitled to an attorney’s fee award in defeating the lien claim under section 713.29 in the . . .

LASCO ENTERPRISES, INC. v. KOHLBRAND, 819 So. 2d 821 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . See § 713.29, Fla. Stal. (1999). . . . .

J. SOURINI PAINTING, INC. R. St. v. JOHNSON PAINTS, INC., 809 So. 2d 95 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . Code, Inc., 626 So.2d 1360 (Fla.1993) (applying the rule where fees are sought pursuant to section 713.29 . . .

J. GRECO, v. W. CARLTON, J. d b a R. L., 793 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . See § 713.29, Fla. Stat. (1999); Fleming v. . . .

H. DAVIS, v. NATIONAL MEDICAL ENTERPRISES, INC. a v. B, 253 F.3d 1314 (11th Cir. 2001)

. . . attorneys’ fees pursuant to the prevailing party fee provision in the mechanic’s lien statute, section 713.29 . . .

J. RADOS, v. P. RADOS,, 791 So. 2d 1130 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . Fla.Stat. (1999) (landlord and tenant actions); § 119.12, Fla.Stat. (1999) (public records enforcement); § 713.29 . . .

Dr. PINES a v. GROWERS SERVICE COMPANY, INC. a, 787 So. 2d 85 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . Further, they opposed any claim to attorney’s fees pursuant to section 713.29, Florida Statutes (1999 . . . evidence to demonstrate that it was the prevailing party under the mechanics’ lien law and that section 713.29 . . .

SAYRE, v. JMC PAINTING, INC. a AGB d b a, AGB, 778 So. 2d 430 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . additional defendants, represented by the same counsel, moved for attorney’s fees under both section 713.29 . . .

G. DOW v. A. McKINLEY,, 776 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . After determining that McKinley prevailed pursuant to section 713.29, Florida Statutes (1997), the trial . . .

ALLEN MORRIS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. v. SALAZAR a k a a k a, 766 So. 2d 360 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . The contractor pled a claim for attorney’s fees under section 713.29, Florida Statutes, which provides . . . While the owners pled a claim for attorney’s fees, they did not cite section 713.29, which is the basis . . . While the chairman could not recall whether the discussion involved section 713.29 or section 713.31, . . . the conclusion is inescapable that the discussion involved section 713.29. . . . That is so because only section 713.29 provides for prevailing party attorney’s fees. . . .

GREGORY CONSTRUCTION, INC. T. v. RANDALL E. STOFFT ARCHITECTS, P. A., 762 So. 2d 536 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . attempt to establish a lien against him individually, he is entitled to attorney’s fees under section 713.29 . . .

CONTINENTAL CONCRETE, INC. a v. LAKES AT LA PAZ III LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a a a a a, 758 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . order granting' appellees, as the prevailing parties below, attorney’s fees and costs under section 713.29 . . . fees and costs against Continental pursuant to the stipulation reached between the parties and section 713.29 . . .

D. PARSONS, P. v. WHITAKER PLUMBING OF BOCA RATON, INC., 751 So. 2d 655 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . . § 713.29, Fla. Stat. (1999). . . . Attorney’s fees and costs awarded under section 713.29 are included within the lien created by section . . . The reasons Zalay articulates for including section 713.29 attorney’s fees within the section 713.06( . . . Section 713.29 fees may properly be taxed after the entry of a final judgment in a lien foreclosure action . . . Only the prevailing party is entitled to fees under section 713.29. . . .

BELL, v. U. S. B. ACQUISITION COMPANY, INC. U. S. B. v. G., 734 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 1999)

. . . Stat. (1997) (awarding reasonable attorney’s fees in actions to recover milk bottles); 713.29, Fla. . . .

P. A. V. C. O. CONSTRUCTION, INC. v. AMERICAN FRAMING SPECIALISTS, INC., 722 So. 2d 932 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . The statutes relied upon to award the fees, section 713.345 and section 713.29, Florida Statutes (1995 . . . Section 713.29 authorizes the award of attorney’s fees in an action to enforce a lien or to enforce a . . .

SUMMERTON d b a v. MAMELE L., 711 So. 2d 131 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . The only legal basis for this award was section 713.29, Florida Statutes (1993), which authorizes an . . . expended in “any action brought to enforce a lien ...” and therefore are not compensable under section 713.29 . . .

HOLLUB CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, v. NARULA, 704 So. 2d 689 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . . § 713.29, Fla. Stat. (1995). . . . errs in not finding the Henor the ‘prevailing party and awarding attorney’s fees pursuant to section 713.29 . . . The trial court’s, denial of attorney’s fees to Hollub pursuant to section 713.29 was thus error. . . .

I. ZALAY A. v. ACE CABINETS OF CLEARWATER, INC. USA, 700 So. 2d 15 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . the language of section 713.06 permits the attorneys’ fees and costs ultimately awarded under section 713.29 . . . The attorneys’ fees awarded under section 713.29 are not an element of damages, but are “taxed as part . . .

GCA, INC. v. S. W. ST. ENTERPRISES, INC. INC., 696 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . . § 713.29, Fla. Stat. (1993). . . . Section 713.29 provides as follows: Attorney’s fees. — In any action brought to enforce a lien or to . . .

REGENCY HOMES OF DADE, INC. v. McMILLEN, III, 689 So. 2d 1204 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . The homeowners moved for attorney’s fees under section 713.29, Florida Statutes. . . . In that ease, this court said that under section 713.29, a prevailing owner is not entitled to “recovery . . .

SCOTT, P. E. v. ROLLING HILLS PLACE INC., 688 So. 2d 937 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . . § 713.29, Fla. Stat. (1995). REVERSED AND REMANDED. . . .

VIE- A- MER, LTD. a v. S. TOUB ASSOCIATES, INC., 684 So. 2d 216 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . While appellee requested attorney’s fees pursuant to section 713.29, Florida Statutes (1993) in their . . . to Tax Costs” which, for the first time, included a request for attorney’s fees pursuant to section 713.29 . . .

PREFERRED NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, v. L. NICHOLS,, 682 So. 2d 585 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . Section 713.29, Florida Statutes (1987), provides that a prevailing party in a mechanic’s lien enforcement . . .

GRANT, v. WESTER, 679 So. 2d 1301 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . .” § 713.29, Fla. Stat. (1991). . . . part one of chapter 713, Florida Statutes, and specifically asked for attorney’s fees under section 713.29 . . . When a mechanic’s lien is foreclosed, the prevailing party recovers attorney’s fees as of right. § 713.29 . . . But “to be a prevailing party entitled to the award of attorney’s fees pursuant to section 713.29, a . . .

AMNESIA INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. SUNHOUSE INTERNATIONAL, INC., 675 So. 2d 707 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . the trial court’s order finding that Sunhouse is entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs under section 713.29 . . . Under the plain language of section 713.29, courts may award fees only in an action brought to enforce . . .

In AMERICAN FABRICATORS, INC. d b a W. GRANT, v. FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION, Co. A A, 197 B.R. 987 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1996)

. . . is mandatory that the “prevailing party” is granted attorneys’ fees pursuant under Florida Statute § 713.29 . . . To obtain attorneys’ fees and costs in a mechanics’ lien claim, section 713.29 of the Florida Statutes . . . Fla.Stat. § 713.29 (1995). . . . Under section 713.29, the Bankruptcy Court must factually determine whether a bona fide settlement offer . . .

HANLEY v. J. KAJAK d b a, 661 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . accordingly also reverse the award of statutory attorney’s fees against the Hanleys pursuant to section 713.29 . . .

E. STUNKEL, v. GAZEBO LANDSCAPING DESIGN, INC., 660 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 1995)

. . . ATTORNEY’S FEES Both parties have moved for attorney’s fees based on section 713.29, Florida Statutes . . .

SHIPWATCH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, a v. J. SALMON, Jr. d b a, 646 So. 2d 838 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . As the prevailing party, Salmon is entitled to attorney’s fees under section 713.29, Florida Statutes . . . Both parties seek attorney’s fees on appeal pursuant to section 713.29. . . .

A. HEIDLE, v. S S DRYWALL AND TILE, INC., 639 So. 2d 1105 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . Section 713.29, Florida Statutes (1991), which deals with construction liens, provides: In any action . . .

V. HEMMERLE, v. AIR CONDITIONING EQUIPMENT, INC. a s, 635 So. 2d 1053 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . As the prevailing party in the mechanic’s lien action brought under section 713.29, Florida Statutes . . .

In GORDON, MAYFAIR BUILDERS, INC. v. GORDON J. I., 164 B.R. 706 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 1994)

. . . Mayfair asserts that pursuant to Florida Statute Section 713.29 its lien should include pre- and post-judgment . . . Florida Statute Section 713.29 provides that the prevailing party in an action to enforce a lien is entitled . . . Because Section 713.29 requires the trial court to award fees to the prevailing party, which fees should . . .

ELBADRAMANY, v. BRYSON CRANE RENTAL SERVICES, INC., 630 So. 2d 214 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . Elbadra-many’s damage claim, Bryson would not be entitled to any attorney’s fee award pursuant to section 713.29 . . .

DANIS INDUSTRIES CORPORATION v. GROUND IMPROVEMENT TECHNIQUES, INC., 629 So. 2d 985 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . Moritz applies to attorney’s fees awarded to prevailing party in mechanic’s lien action under section 713.29 . . .

A. PROSPERI, v. CODE, INC., 626 So. 2d 1360 (Fla. 1993)

. . . MECHANIC’S LIEN UNDER PART I, CHAPTER 713, FLORIDA STATUTES (1989), ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES UNDER 713.29 . . . THE PREVAILING PARTY FOR THE PURPOSES OF AWARDING ATTORNEYS FEES APPLY TO FEES AWARDED UNDER SECTION 713.29 . . . The court also denied the owner’s claim for attorney’s fees (1) under section 713.29, Florida Statutes . . . Section 713.29, Florida Statutes (1989), provides that in any action brought to enforce a mechanic’s . . . We also believe it is significant that in 1977 the legislature amended section 713.29 to provide that . . .

ALL- BRITE ALUMINUM, INC. a v. DESROSIERS, 626 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . that in order to be a prevailing party entitled to the award of attorney’s fees pursuant to section 713.29 . . . Section 713.29, Florida Statutes (1991) provides: "In an action brought to enforce a [construction] lien . . .

R M CABINET SALES, INC. a v. HALLMARK BUILDING SUPPLY,, 621 So. 2d 1090 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . .1985), “in order to be a prevailing party-entitled to the award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to section 713.29 . . .

WILLEY d b a s v. M. K. ROARK, INC. a, 616 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . The court based its denial on section 713.29, Florida Statutes (1990), and found that Willey was not . . . Grove, Inc., 472 So.2d 1177 (Fla.1985), and section 713.29, Florida Statutes (1990). . . . In contrast, section 713.29 is expressly limited to “any action brought to enforce a lien under part . . . which governs the assessment of attorney’s fees is not the prevailing party provision under section 713.29 . . .

SUITT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. v. ASSOCIATES,, 611 So. 2d 1374 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . Co., 339 So.2d 689 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); § 713.29, Fla.Stat. (1989). . . .

WALTER N. VANCE, III, INC. a v. FREEMAN, a k a H. a k a, 610 So. 2d 98 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

. . . (Vance) appeals an order denying its motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to section 713.29, Florida Statutes . . . However, as the trial court found, section 713.29 cannot be compared with sections 627.428 and 627.756 . . . Fees are not awardable under former section 713.29 unless a party prevails in an action to enforce a . . . Section 713.29 was amended effective January 1, 1991 to include payment for services during arbitration . . . instituted prior to January 1, 1991 and the trial court correctly determined that the amended section 713.29 . . .

A. PROSPERI, v. CODE, INC., 609 So. 2d 59 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

. . . THE PREVAILING PARTY FOR THE PURPOSES OF AWARDING ATTORNEY’S FEES APPLY TO FEES AWARDED UNDER SECTION 713.29 . . . that the supreme court will extend that test to cases involving attorney’s fees awarded under section 713.29 . . .

O. SHEAR, v. HORNSBY AND WHISENAND, P. A., 603 So. 2d 129 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

. . . the trial court ordered Shear to pay the defendant attorney’s fees of $36,067.02 pursuant to section 713.29 . . .

Dr. FREEDMAN v. COLLIER COMMERCIAL BUILDERS, INC. a, 596 So. 2d 115 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

. . . moved the trial court to confirm the award and successfully sought attorney's fees pursuant to section 713.29 . . . Section 713.29, Florida Statutes (1989), in effect when Collier commenced its action, did not contemplate . . . Section 713.29 Attorney's fees. — In any action brought to enforce a lien under [sections 713.-01-.37 . . .

ROBERT A. HUGGINS GENERAL CONTRACTOR, INC. v. N. B. WILLOUGHBY,, 595 So. 2d 1003 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

. . . $94,458.00 plus interest of $24,559.08, together with the attorney fees award made pursuant to sec-' tion 713.29 . . .

OLIVER GENERAL FENCE, INC. v. M. ROCHE M., 594 So. 2d 339 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

. . . Appellant seeks its fee under two theories: (1) under section 713.29, Florida Statutes (1989) as the . . . grounds that the case was resolved in settlement and there was no “prevailing party” under section 713.29 . . . constitutes fundamental error and cannot stand as the basis of an award of attorney’s fees under section 713.29 . . . The “prevailing party” analysis of section 713.29 has no relevance to this case. . . . Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court denying appellant’s claim for attorney’s fees under section 713.29 . . .

AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, v. F. BUCK, P. E., 594 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 1992)

. . . . § 713.29, Fla.Stat. (1985). . . .

BUSINESS MEN S ASSURANCE CO. OF AMERICA, v. A- CHATTAHOOCHEE PATIOS, INC., 592 So. 2d 324 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

. . . entitled to the award of attorney’s fees pursuant to rule 9.400, Rules of Appellate Procedure, and section 713.29 . . .

O KON AND COMPANY, INC. v. A. RIEDEL, C. Jr. G. d b a RSW a, 588 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

. . . RSW successfully resisted O’Kon’s claim for mechanic’s lien and is entitled to a fee under section 713.29 . . .