FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT J UNE 14, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 06- 1214 4

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 03-21585 -CV -PCH JEANETTE KAT HERINE SUCCAR SUC CAR, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us SAFRA NATIONAL BANK OF NE W YORK, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 06- 1214 5

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 03-21581 -CV -PCH MANUEL BEHAR FRYDLEW SKI, JESS ICA BENDERMAN WAINSENKER, Pl ai nt iff s- App el la nt s, ve rs us2

SAFRA NATIONAL BANK OF NE W YORK, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 06- 1214 6

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 03-21582 -CV -H UCK INMOBI LIARIA NATANIA DE LIMA, S.C.R.L., Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us SAFRA NATIONAL BANK OF NE W YORK, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 06- 1214 7

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 03-21584 -CV -H UCK EDUARDO DE LAS CASAS, MARIA IS ABEL DE L AS CASAS,3 Pl ai nt iff s- App el la nt s, ve rs us SAFRA NATIONAL BANK OF NE W YORK, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 06- 1214 8

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 03-21586 -CV -H UCK GERALD COOKLIN Z IMM ERMAN, MARIA ALIDA COOKLIN, Pl ai nt iff s- App el la nt s, ve rs us SAFRA NATIONAL BANK OF NE W YORK, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 06- 1214 9

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 02-23377 -CV -PCH4

MANUAL BEHAR FRYDLEW SKI, etal., Pl ai nt iff s, ALDO FERNANDO KAHAN N OVOA, GUSTAVO KA HAN NOVO A, Pl ai nt iff s- App el la nt s, ve rs us SAFRA NATIONAL BANK OF NE W YORK, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 06- 1215 0

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 03-21583 -CV -PCH LUIS JOAQUIN CARNEIR O, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us SAFRA NATIONAL BANK OF NE W YORK, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.5 ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 06- 1215 1

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 03-21587 -CV -PCH GILLIAN MENDIZABAL SEVILLA , ENRIQUE MENDIZABAL RAIG, Pl ai nt iff s- App el la nt s, ve rs us SAFRA NATIONAL BANK OF NE W YORK, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeals fr om

the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J un e 14, 200 7) Be fo re A N D E RS O N , MA RC U S an d C O X , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: T h i s i s t h e s e c o n dt i me t h a tt h i s c a s e h a s t h e s e c o n s o l i d a t e dc a s e s h a v e c o me be fo re thi s C ourt. I n th e fi rs t a ppe al , w e af

fi rm ed the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of
sum m ar y j udgm en t t o S af

ra N at ion al Bank. B ac k inthe dis tr ic t c ourt, S af ra sou ght6

attor ne y ’ s f ee s, w hic h th e dis tr ic t c ourt aw ar de d, inc lud ing in the a w ar d f ee s f or a ll of the work done below. T he Appellants appeal both of these orders, ar guin g that the authorizing papers betwe en the parties do not su pport the awar d of fees and that
ev enif the y do, the f ee a w ar d sh oul d no t i nc lud e w ork do ne on c la im s th at a re now pendin g in state court, having been dism issed bythe district court before they we re li ti ga te d. U nde r Fl or ida

law , a“ co ntr ac tua l a tto rn ey ' s f ee pr ovi sio n m

ust be str ic tly construed.” B& H C onstr. & Supply Co. v. District B d. of T rustees of T allahassee Cm ty . Co ll. , F la
. , 542 S o. 2d 3 82, 387 ( Fl a. 4thD ist
. Ct
. App. 198 9)
. T he F ourth D istri ct e xte nsi ve ly

e xa m ine d th e Fl or ida

S upr em e Co urt’ s li ne of

c as es hol din g that contracts for attorney ’ s fees m ust be strictly

construed. Sholkoff v. B oca Raton Com

m unityHosp., 693 So.2d 111 4 (Fla. 4th Dist.Ct. App. 1989 ). T he court
c o n c l u d e dt h a ts tr i c tc o n s t r u c t i o n me a n tth a t“th e p a rt i e s mu s tman i f e s ti n s o me cl ear w ay a n a gr ee m en t t o in de m

nif y the oth er f or a tto rn ey ’ s f

ee s f or aspe ci fi c m at te r.” Id . at 1 11 8. Fl or ida c ourts h av e he ld tha t i nde m nif ic at ionc lause s si m ilar to those in the instant case apply

only to claim s brough t by

third parties, and no t to suit s betwee n the part ie s to the ind em

nif ic at ionc ontra ct . T hus, w he re a n in de m nif ic at ionc lause pr ovi de s in de m

nity inc lud ing a tto rn ey ’ s f

ee s and w oul d se em

to ap ply not onl y toThe a ppellate c ourt had re verse d the dismissal but t he cour t did not cite that as part of 1 its re a so nin gfo r r e

je c tin gthe c la im f

or atto rn e y ’s fe e s. 7 cl ai m s by thi rd part ie s bu t a lso to sui ts b etw ee n th e part ie s, the F lor ida c ourts h old tha t the ind em

nif ic at ionc lause appl ie s on ly to cl ai m s by

thi rd part ie s if , w ith
re spe ct to sui ts b etw ee n th e part ie s, the a tto rn ey ’ s f ee s pr ovi sio n is not

li m ite d to pr ev ai li ng pa rti es . T he f ir st o f the se c as es is Ce ntury V ill ag e v. Ch atha m

Co ndom ini um A sso ci at ion s, 387 S o. 2d 5 23 ( Fl a. 4thD ist
. Ct
. App. 198 0)
. T he re , the ind em nif ic at ionpr ovi sio n he ld the L es sor harm le ss f

ro m li ab ili ty a ga ins t “ an y

a nd al l c la im s” m ad e ag ai nst

the L es sor

a ri sin g ou t of

the le as e co ntr ac t and aw ar din g an y sum s ow ed

a nd a tto rn ey ’ s f

ee s to the L es sor

sho uld it ha ve to de fe nd any ac tio n. I d. a t 52 3. T he c ourt he ld tha t the L es sor , w ho w as sue d by the L es se e an d had the suit d ism issed, wa s not entit led to attorney ’ s fees under that 1 ind em nif ic at ionc lause . T he c ourt he ld tha t i t w as “ qui te obv iou s” that the c lause w as not int en de d to appl y

to ac tio ns b etw ee n th e part ie s bu t r athe r tha t i t w as to ap ply to ac tio ns b y

thi rd part ie s. I d. a t 52 4. S pe ci fi ca lly , the c ourt st at ed : A cc ep tin g th e le sso r' s c ont en tio n w oul d a m ount to ac ce pti ng the inc ongr uous the or

y that a lth oughthe [ L es se es ] m ay be suc ce ssf

ul i n th ei r li ti ga ti on , th ey

wou ld ne ve rth el es s h av e to sat is fy th ei r own j udgm en t i n a ddi tio n to pay ing the le sso r' s c ost s. Id
.8

T he F lor ida

S upr em e Co urt a dopt ed

the r ule f ro m Ce ntury V ill ag e in Pe nth ouse N orth A sso ci at ionv. L om bard i, 461 S o. 2d 1 350 (F la
. 198 5)
. T he re , the A s s o c i a t i o n s u e di t s d i r e c t o r s b u tt h e t r i a l c o u rtd i s mi s s e dt h e s u i t . T h e s up r e me co urt r ej ec te d th e dir ec tor s’ r eque st f or a tto rn ey ’ s f

ee s, e xpl ic itl y

a dopt ing the
re as oni ng o f the c ourt i n C en tur y V ill ag e. 460 S o. 2d a t 13 53. Mo re r ec en tly , the Fi rs t D istri ct

Co urt of Appe al s de nie d a tto rn ey ’ s f ee s to apr ev ai lin g party

be ca use the “ indem

nification clauses in th e L ease A greem ent d[id] not provi de for an award of a tto rn ey ’ s f

ee s to the pr ev ai lin g party in lit iga tio n be tw ee n th e co ntr ac tin g parties.” T ray lor Bros. v. Melvin, 776 So. 2d 94 7, 948 (Fla. 1st Dist.Ct. App. 2000 ). Both of the contractual provisio ns relied upon by Saf ra c ontain b road ind em nif ic at ionc lause s bu t no li m itatio n to pr ev ai lin g part ie s insui ts b etw ee n th e part ie s to the ind em

nif ic at ionc ontra ct . T he auth or iz at ionle tte r fr om S af ra to the Appe llants state s, in re le vant p ar t: we [t h e i n v es t o rs ] ag re e t o re i m b u rs e, i n d emn i fy an dh o l d , you [S af ra ], y ou r em pl oyees, ag en ts an d a ss ig ns ha rm le ss fro m all li ab il it y . . . claim , dam age and expenses, including rea sonable attorney s fees, that m ay a ri se out f ro m [ sic ] y our

pe rf orm an ce und er

thi s a gr ee m en t, or arising from

claim s of third parties or from any taxes . . . which m ay be due a s ar es ult

of the se tr an sa ct ion s, gov er nm en ta l c harg es a nd re la te d e xpe nse s. Si m ilarl y , the I nte rn at ion al Banki ng T er m s and C ondi tio ns f

or A cc ount s, w hic h th e Appe llants a gr ee d to abid e by , pr ovi de s:9

W e sha ll ha ve no r es pons ibi lity or li ab ili ty ( ei the r at the br an chof de posi t or a t any oth er of fi ce r eg ar dle ss o f w he re loc at ed , inc lud ing the Bank’ s he ad

of fi ce ) to y ou f

or a ny r ed uc tio n inthe de posi t or unava ila bil ity of f unds due to re str ic tio ns i m pose d or a ct ion s take n by any governm ent, c entral bank or other fiscal, m onetary or other au tho ri ty , de f

ac to o r de m

ur e [s ic ]
. Y ou m

ust a lso r ei m bur se us f or our c ost s and e xpe nse s, inc lud ing le ga l f ee s, inc ur re d inc onne ct ion with any actions or claim s asserted against us arising ou t of or re lated to the restrictions or actions described in the prece ding sentence. T he tw o in de m

nif ic at ionc lause s he re m

ust be c onstru ed

und er F lor ida lawto ap ply onlyto claim s by

third parties, bec ause neither clause lim its the attorney ’ s fee pr ovi sio n to the pr ev ai lin g party in sui ts b etw ee n th e part ie s to the ind em nif ic at ion
co nt ract . A t or al a rg um en t, S af

ra sou ght f or the f ir st t im e to f

ind a n e xc ep tio n to the
co nc ep t e m

bodi ed in Pe nth ouse a nd C en tur y . S af ra a rg ue d th at

the e xpl ic it refe rence to claim s of third parties in the second clause of the authorization letter refle cts a clear intent that the first clause m ust applynot on ly

to claim s of third part ie s, but

a lso to cl ai m s be tw ee n th e part ie s be ca use w ith out

that, it w oul d be
re dund an t w iththe oth er

c lause s. W e re

j ec t S af ra ’ s arg um en t. T he ind em nif ic at ion
c a n b e s e p a r a t e di n t o t h r e e c l au s e s : ( 1 ) “ w e [ t h e i n v e s t o r s ] a g r e e t o . . . i n d e mn i f y .

. . y ou [Safr a]
. . . from

all liability

. . . includin g reasonable attorney s fees, that
m ay a ri se out f ro m [ sic ] y our

pe rf orm an ce und er

thi s a gr ee m en t” ; ( 2) “ or

a ri sin gBe cause no attorney ’s fe es at a ll are due to be paid to Safra in these ca ses, we 2 need not a ddress the othe r ar g ument asser ted o n appea l. 10 fr om c la im s of thi rd part ie s” ; ( 3) “ or

f ro m a ny ta xe s . . . gov er

nm en ta l c harg es a nd
re la te d e xpe nse s. ” I t i s tr ue that the f

ir st c lause c oul d be r ea d to e nc om pa ss b oth cl ai m s by thi rd part ie s a s w el l a s su its be tw ee n th e co ntr ac tin g part ie s. B ec au se the Fl or ida c as e lawdis cu sse d a

bove in ef

fe ct r ej ec ts the int er

pr et at ionof

the f ir st cl au se that w oul d e nc om

pa ss s uit s be tw ee n th e co ntr ac tin g part ie s be ca use it la ck s a pr ev ai lin g party

c lause , it is al so tru e that the r em ai nin g a spe ct of the f ir st c lause i s r e du n d a n tw i t h t h e s e c o n dc l au s e . H o w e v e r , t h e t h i r dc l au s e a l s o r e f e r s t o c l a i ms by a third party , i. e. , the governm ent, and therefore is also re dund ant. T he drafter of the ins tant d oc um en t ob vio usl y w as not a ve rs e to r ed

undanc y . I n any

e ve nt, unde r the str ic t c onstru ct ionappl ie d by F lor ida c ourts t o a tto rn ey ’ s f

ee s pr ovi sio ns, w e re ad ily

c onc lud e tha t the re is no c le ar a nd m an if

es t i nte nti on tha t a

ppe llants shou ld i nde m

nif y S af ra f or a tto rn ey ’ s f

ee s inthe se c onso lid at ed

c as es . 2 A cc or din gly , the j udgm en ts o f the dis tr ic t c ourt are r ev er se d. REVERSED.