Bonny Snyder and Mark Johnson v. Arthur Lee Davis, Jr.,

D ISTRICT C OURT OF A PPEAL O F T HE STATE OF F LORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
BONNY SNYDER and MARK JOHNSON,
Appellants,
v.
GUARDIANSHIP OF JACQUELYN MCCLUNEY WARD,
Appellee.
No. 4D2024-1161
[December 10, 2025]
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm
Beach 	County; 	Charles 	E. 	Burton, 	Judge; 	L.T. 	Case 	No.
502022GA000074XXXX.
Brett C. Barner and Allison R. Sabocik of Barner & Barner, P.A., Palm
Beach Gardens, for appellants.
Howard M. Rudolph, Sarah A. Vitulli, and Kayla C. Di Scala of Rudolph
& Associates, LLC, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
S HEPHERD, J.
Jacquelyn 	McCluney 	Ward’s 	(“the 	Ward”) 	co-guardians—her 	adult
children—appeal 	from 	the 	trial 	court’s 	order 	finding 	that 	each 	party
prevailed on a significant issue in the litigation and that each side would,
therefore, bear its own attorney’s fees. 	For the reasons discussed below,
we reverse, holding that the co-guardians were the prevailing party entitled
to recover attorney’s fees.
Background
On October 13, 2022, the Ward’s husband, Arthur Lee Davis, Jr. (“the
husband”) and the co-guardians entered into a settlement agreement
granting plenary power over the Ward’s person and property to the co-
guardians. 	In exchange, the husband received assets and cash.
The husband later filed a motion for contempt and to enforce the
settlement agreement against the co-guardians regarding, among other
things, his visitation with the Ward. The husband raised five issues in the

2
motion, claiming the co-guardians were: (1) depriving him of one visitation
day each month by counting his Friday-to-Sunday visits as four days
instead 	of 	three; 	(2) 	improperly 	restricting 	his 	visit 	locations; 	(3)
impermissibly monitoring his visits; (4) denying him holiday visitation; and
(5) 	preventing 	him 	from 	communicating 	with 	the 	Ward 	outside 	his
scheduled visits.
Based on these allegations, the husband sought a finding of civil
contempt, sanctions including attorney’s fees and costs, and to recoup
visitation 	days. 	In 	the 	alternative, 	he 	requested 	clarification 	of 	the
settlement agreement to resolve ambiguities regarding the allowed number
of 	visitation 	days, 	visit 	locations, 	holidays 	with 	the 	Ward, 	and
communications with her. 	He also asked the court to appoint a guardian
ad litem under section 744.391, Florida Statutes (2023), to facilitate
visitation.
The trial court denied the husband’s contempt motion on all but one
issue. 	On that issue, the trial court found in the husband’s favor on the
calculation of weekend visitation days, concluding that his Friday-to-
Sunday visits constituted three days, not four. 	The trial court also found
that the co-guardians were the prevailing party and entitled to recover
their attorney’s fees incurred in defending against the husband’s motion.
The husband moved for rehearing on his contempt motion. 	After
hearing argument, the trial court reiterated its prior rulings, except to find
that each party had prevailed on a significant issue, neither was the
prevailing party, and each would bear its own attorney’s fees and costs.
This appeal followed.
Analysis
Florida law defines the prevailing party as the party who succeeds on
the significant issues tried before the court and achieves the benefit sought
in bringing the action. 	Moritz v. Hoyt Enters., Inc., 604 So. 2d 807, 810
(Fla. 1992); Trytek v. Gale Industries, Inc., 3 So. 3d 1194, 1200 (Fla. 2009).
A party may obtain a favorable judgment yet fail to qualify as the prevailing
party when that party does not prevail on the real, contested issues in the
case. 	Skylink Jets, Inc. v. Klukan, 308 So. 3d 1048 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020).
We have emphasized that, absent compelling circumstances, one party
must prevail. 	Lucite Ctr., Inc. v. Mercede, 606 So. 2d 492, 493 (Fla. 4th
DCA 1992); Hutchinson v. Hutchinson, 687 So. 2d 912, 913 (Fla. 4th DCA
1997). 	Only in rare instances—when the outcome is truly a draw—may a
court find no prevailing party. 	Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Tr. for SASCO

3
2007-MLN1 Tr. v. Moccia, 258 So. 3d 469 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (quoting
Radosevich v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 245 So. 3d 877, 881 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018))
(“[W]here litigation ultimately ends in a proverbial ‘tie,’ with each party
prevailing in part and losing in part on the significant issues in the
litigation, a trial court may properly determine that neither party has
prevailed for purposes of entitlement to attorney’s fees.”).
Here, 	the 	co-guardians 	correctly 	argue 	the 	trial 	court 	erred 	in
determining that the husband was also a prevailing party. 	His limited
success on a single issue did not constitute “prevailing” on a significant
issue in the litigation. Although the trial court later deemed the weekend-
day-counting issue “significant,” the husband’s motion had sought relief
well beyond clarification of the weekend visitation guidelines. 	He had
asked the trial court to: (1) find the co-guardians in contempt; (2) clarify
the agreement’s visitation terms; (3) remove the co-guardians and install
a guardian ad litem; (4) remove supervision from his visitations; (5) expand
his visitation to include hotels and out-of-state travel; and (6) award
attorney’s fees. 	His primary objective was to expand visitation rights and
restrict the co-guardians’ discretion. 	The weekend-visitation clarification
was only a narrow aspect of that effort.
In contrast, the co-guardians prevailed on five of six substantive issues,
thus achieving the practical result which they had sought—preserving
their authority to act in the Ward’s best interests and maintaining the
visitation 	framework 	set 	by 	the 	agreement. 	The 	husband’s 	limited
clarification that his Friday-to-Sunday visit constituted three days did not
change the visitation schedule, supervision requirements, restrictions, or
provide monetary or equitable relief.
Because 	the 	co-guardians 	had 	achieved 	their 	primary 	litigation
objectives, while the husband’s single win on the number of days in a
weekend had limited effect, the trial court’s finding that neither party had
prevailed lacks support in the record. 	The co-guardians prevailed in the
contempt 	proceeding 	and 	the 	court 	shall 	enter 	judgment 	awarding
attorney’s fees in their favor, with the amount to be determined via an
evidentiary hearing.
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
GROSS and G ERBER , JJ., concur.
* 	* 	*
Not final until disposition of timely-filed motion for rehearing.