40 (1983)). The result obtained governs the determination of which party prevailed, and “the fairest test to determine who is the prevailing party is to allow the tria 45-46 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2011) (“[Ajppel-lant was entitled to attorney’s fees as the prevailing party in the case.... Like Val-carcel, the dismissal in this case was not an adjudication on the merits, since it was a dismissal without prejudice. Under Val-carcel, however, a defendant may ‘prevail’ even where the case is not dismissed on the merits. The fact that the trial court dismissed the case without prejudice was sufficient to trigger appellant’s entitlement to attorney’s fees as the prevailing party under the rental contract.”); Baratta v. Valley Oak Homeowners’ Ass’n, 891 So.2d 1063, 1065 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2004) (<HOLDING>); see also Alhambra Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. v.
holding that the plaintiffs were not prevailing parties entitled to attorneys fees for successfully securing a remand of the attorneys fees issue because the ruling was unrelated to the merits of the plaintiffs claim and the issue was not significant nor a benefit the plaintiffs sought in bringing their action holding that a defendant homeowners association was the prevailing party for purposes of attorneys fees when a plaintiff homeowners action was dismissed for failure to prosecute holding that the defendant became the prevailing party and thus properly claimed attorneys fees when the plaintiffs claim was involuntarily dismissed for failure to prosecute 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 holding that a defendant is the prevailing party within the meaning of statutory provisions awarding attorneys fees to the prevailing party even when the plaintiff voluntarily dismisses the action