the instant Amended Motion.” 3 . In their motion, the Mestres did not address why the earlier orders granting Bank leave to amend were not "procedurally binding.” 4 . In limited circumstances, a party may recover attorney's fees pursuant to a contract even though the contract is later rescinded by the court. See, e.g., Katz v. Van Der Noord, 546 So.2d 1047, 1049 (Fla. 1989); Bus. Aide Computers, Inc. v. Cent. Fla. Mack Trucks, Inc., 432 So.2d 681, 682 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983) (finding a choice of law provision in a contract applicable even though the appellee claimed the contract was fraudulently induced). However, in the instant case, these circumstances do not apply because, based on the trial court’s finding, no contract ever existed. See David v. Richman, 568 So.2d 922, 923 (Fla.1990) (<HOLDING>). 5 . Bank was not the original lender. 6 . The
holding that a party is precluded from claiming attorneys fees under a contract which has been found to have never existed holding party should have segregated attorneys fees for fraud claim from attorneys fees for contract claim based largely on the difference between the essential elements of each claim holding award of attorneys fees to party prevailing on contract claim is mandatory under section 38001 if there is proof of the reasonableness of the fees holding that no reason existed to create a uniform national rule in admiralty where the case concerned attorneys fees and whether the contractual provision which provided for attorneys fees should allow a party to recover attorneys fees where it succeeded on all but one minor issue holding that a party may recover attorneys fees under section 38001 only if the party prevails on a cause of action for which attorneys fees are available and recovers damages