fees in the amount of $6821.25. Baratta appealed the order, disputing both the entitlement and the amount granted. We find that Valley Oak was entitled to attorney’s fees because it was the prevailing party and properly claimed attorney’s fees. Chapter 720, Florida Statutes, deals with homeowners’ associations. It provides legal redress against the .association, members, directors, and officers for failure to comply with statutes, association documents, or community rules. Prevailing parties in the litigation are entitled to recover attorney’s fees under section 720.305, Florida Statutes (2002). Valley Oak became the prevailing party when Ba-ratta’s claim was dismissed for failure to prosecute. See Norland v. Villages at Country Creek Master Ass’n, 851 So.2d 770, 771 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (<HOLDING>). Valley Oak, as the prevailing party, properly
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 holding that even though the complaint was dismissed without prejudice as a sanction for misconduct and even though the order of dismissal was therefore not an adjudication on the merits the defendants were nevertheless properly considered the prevailing party for purposes of attorneys fees 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 a defendant homeowners association was the prevailing party for purposes of attorneys fees when a plaintiff homeowners action was dismissed for failure to prosecute