
    RESEARCH AND DESIGN, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. HEICO CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, Appellee. HEICO CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Thomas R. SCHWARZ, Robert F. Bell, and Research and Design, Inc., Appellees.
    Nos. 89-0268, 89-1278.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    Aug. 1, 1990.
    Rehearings Denied Sept. 24, 1990.
    Thomas R. Schwarz, Lauderhill, and Henry W. Ciar, Miami, for appellant-Research and Design, Inc., a Florida Corp.
    Robert B. Macaulay and Raymond L. Robin of Olle, St. Louis, Macaulay, Zorrilla & Lee, P.A., Miami, for Heico Corp.
    Lawrence S. Gordon of Albert G. Carua-na and Associates, P.A., Miami, for appel-lee-Robert F. Bell.
   PER CURIAM.

We sua sponte consolidate these two (2) appeals and affirm in both cases.

In Case No. 89-0268, we affirm the final judgment entered after a bench trial because we find the appellants have failed to demonstrate that all of the alternative bases relied upon by the trial court were unsupported by competent substantial evidence. Under these circumstances we have no authority to set aside the decision of the trial court. Oceanic Intern. Corp. v. Lantana Boatyard, 402 So.2d 507 (Fla.4th DCA 1981).

In Case No. 89-1278, we affirm because most of the issues raised are rendered moot by our decision in Case No. 89-0268. We also find no error by the trial court in concluding that Heico Corporation is not entitled to recover damages from Robert Bell as a consequence of Bell supporting the prosecution of the main suit. In essence, the damages claimed were the legal expenses incurred in the successful defense of the action involved in Case No. 89-0268. We do not believe that Heico set out a proper legal basis upon which such damages could be awarded.

ANSTEAD and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur.

POLEN, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with opinion.

POLEN, Judge,

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I concur with the majority opinion in affirming the final judgment in Case No. 89-0268. I also concur with the majority holding in Case No. 89-1278 to the extent that they are correct that a claim for damages based on a contract action, Bell’s alleged breach of the 1978 settlement agreement, would not form a basis for relief. However, a theory could be made out under Martha A. Gottfried, Inc. v. Amster, 511 So.2d 595 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), and its progeny which the majority recognizes but concludes contrarily that Heico is not entitled to recover the legal expenses incurred in the successful defense of case No. 89-0268. Had it been properly pled, Heico could have been entitled. I would reverse and remand with leave to amend.  