Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 713.31. See Wells v. Halmac Dev., Inc., 189 So.3d 1015, 1016-22 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). Because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the homeowner was not the prevailing party on the significant issues in this case, we affirm the trial court’s order denying the homeowner’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs. We also affirm the award of costs to the contractor in the consolidated case (4D15-2588), because the contractor was adjudicated to be the prevailing party in the litigation. The Contractor’s Cross-Appeal On cross-appeal, the contractor challenges the trial court’s determination that its lien was fraudulent. We affirm, because competent substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding of a fraudulent lien. See Delta Painting, 710 So.2d at 664 (<HOLDING>). “It is within the trial court’s discretion to 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that defendants assertions of workproduct were not supported by competent evidence (B) holding that the district courts finding of no discrimination was not clearly erroneous because the finding was supported by the record (C) holding substantial evidence supported jury finding of abuse of process (D) holding that a trial courts finding of a fraudulent lien must be supported by competent evidence (E) holding law court will not overturn conclusions supported by competent and substantial evidence
Output (English): holding that the district courts finding of no discrimination was not clearly erroneous because the finding was supported by the record