Inc., 604 So.2d 807, 810 (Fla.1992). This test has also been used to decide which party is the “prevailing party” for purposes 'of awarding appellate costs under rule 9.400(a). The test is somewhat modified because the trial court must determine which party prevailed on the significant issues on appeal, not at trial. See North American Van Lines v. Ferguson Transp., Inc., 662 So.2d 1275 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). In General Capital, we emphasized that a “dogmatic approach” to appellate costs is not appropriate and that such costs do not automatically “follow the judgment.” 239 So.2d at 135-36. There are cases involving appeals and cross-appeals in which courts have held that no party prevailed for purposes of awarding costs. See, e.g., Phares v. Cowles, 459 So.2d 1110 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) (<HOLDING>). FP & L’s appeal and the estates’ cross-appeal
holding that prevailing party has no standing to appeal holding that successful party is one who is the ultimate prevailing party in the litigation holding neither party was prevailing party where appeal and crossappeal were dismissed holding in landlordtenant case that the court has discretion to characterize neither party as prevailing where each party prevailed on a main issue holding that the party prevailing on the significant issues in the litigation is the party that should be considered the prevailing party for attorneys fees