Case Name: HARDWARE IMAGINATION, INC., and Jean Roye, Individually, Appellants, v. Paul GROLL, individually and Harold Groll, individually, and in their right as shareholders of Hardware Imagination, Inc., Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2007-08-08
Citations: 963 So. 2d 850
Docket Number: Nos. 3D06-2064, 3D06-2061
Parties: HARDWARE IMAGINATION, INC., and Jean Roye, Individually, Appellants, v. Paul GROLL, individually and Harold Groll, individually, and in their right as shareholders of Hardware Imagination, Inc., Appellees.
Judges: Before WELLS, CORTIÑAS, and ROTHENBERG, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 963
Pages: 850–851

Head Matter:
HARDWARE IMAGINATION, INC., and Jean Roye, Individually, Appellants, v. Paul GROLL, individually and Harold Groll, individually, and in their right as shareholders of Hardware Imagination, Inc., Appellees.
Nos. 3D06-2064, 3D06-2061.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Aug. 8, 2007.
Rehearing Denied Sept. 26, 2007.
Silverberg & Associates and Paul K. Silverberg and Kraig S. Weiss (Weston), for appellants.
Anania, Bandklayder, Blackwell, Baum-garten, Torricella & Stein and Douglas H. Stein; Paykin Greenblatt Lesser & Krieg and Peter V. Fullerton, for appellees.
Before WELLS, CORTIÑAS, and ROTHENBERG, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Paul and Harold Groll, individually and on behalf of Hardware Imagination, Inc. ("Hardware"), appeal a final judgment valuing certain shares of Hardware stock at $751,401. Jean Roye, individually and in her capacity as personal representative of the estate of James Roye, also appeals the final judgments valuing the stock at $751,401 and awarding Hardware attorney's fees.
We affirm the final judgment determining the buyout value of the Hardware stock because the record contains competent substantial evidence to support the $751,401 value placed on the stock. See CADD Ctrs. of Fla., Inc. v. Strickland, 851 So.2d 756, 758 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (citation omitted)(reversing a final judgment because there was no competent substantial evidence to support the trial court's valuation of stock). However, we reverse the final judgment awarding Hardware attorney's fees because, under the facts of this case, the record does not support the trial court's finding that Hardware was the prevailing party in the significant issue of the litigation. See KCIN, Inc. v. Canpro Inv., Ltd., 675 So.2d 222, 223 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)(holding that an award of attorney's fees is not warranted each time there is litigation involving a contract which provides for prevailing party attorney's fees).
Affirmed in part; reversed in part.