Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

  • Bloglovin
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • Home
  • Locations
    • Where We Practice in Florida
    • Where We Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Bruce D. Burk
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Steven A. Ochsner
    • Alexis C. Upton
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

February 16, 2018 by admin

Attorney’s fees — Proposal for settlement — No error in denying motion for trial level attorney’s fees where motions were served more than 30 days after entry of judgment — Because award of appellate attorney’s fees was not dependent upon entitlement to trial level attorney fees, on remand trial court to determine entitlement to and, if appropriate, the amount of appellate attorney’s fees

43
Fla. L. Weekly D366a

Attorney’s
fees — Proposal for settlement — No error in denying motion for trial level
attorney’s fees where motions were served more than 30 days after entry of
judgment — Because award of appellate attorney’s fees was not dependent upon
entitlement to trial level attorney fees, on remand trial court to determine
entitlement to and, if appropriate, the amount of appellate attorney’s fees

JOHN A. CATALO and CATALO APPRAISAL
& REALTY, INC., Appellants, v. LLANO FINANCING GROUP, LLC, Appellee. 4th
District. Case No. 4D16-4348. February 14, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court
for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit; Palm Beach County; Cymonie S. Rowe, Judge;
L.T. Case No. 50-2015-CA-008897-XXXX-MB-AN. Counsel: Roy W. Jordan, Jr. of Roy
W. Jordan, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellants. Robert J. Hauser of Pankauski
Hauser PLLC, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
(GROSS, J.) This is an appeal from
an order denying attorneys’ fees based on a proposal for settlement filed by
the defendants. Due to the untimeliness of appellants’ motions for attorneys’
fees in the circuit court, we affirm in part. We reverse and remand as to appellate
attorneys’ fees, which were not dependent on an award of fees at the trial
court level.
The circuit court originally
dismissed the case with prejudice on February 25, 2016. The court later
determined that the order of dismissal was not a final order and entered a
second order of dismissal on May 13, 2016. Appellee/plaintiff appealed the
second order of dismissal; this court dismissed the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction, ruling that the February 25 order was a final order and that the
plaintiff failed to timely move for rehearing, so the appeal was untimely. We
also granted appellate attorneys’ fees “conditioned on the trial court
determining that [appellants/defendants] are entitled to fees under section
768.79, Florida Statutes, and, if so, to set the amount of the attorneys’ fees
to be awarded for this appellate case.”
Appellants’ first motion for fees
was filed on April 22, 2016, more than 30 days after the February 25 order of
dismissal. A second motion for fees was filed on May 13, 2016, the same day
that the second order of dismissal issued.
The circuit court took up the issue
of appellants’ entitlement to attorneys’ fees and held a hearing. The court
ultimately denied all attorneys’ fees due to problems with service of the
motions.
We do not reach the issue of the
propriety of the service because we affirm the denial of trial level attorneys’
fees under the tipsy coachman rule. “Under the tipsy coachman rule, ‘if a trial
court reaches the right result, but for the wrong reasons, it will be upheld if
there is any basis which would support judgment in the record.’ ” Bueno v.
Workman
, 20 So. 3d 993, 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (quoting Dade Cty. Sch.
Bd. v. Radio Station WQBA
, 731 So. 2d 638, 644 (Fla. 1999)).
Pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil
Procedure 1.525, a motion for attorneys’ fees must be served “no later than 30
days after filing of the judgment, including a judgment of dismissal.” See
also Swift v. Wilcox
, 924 So. 2d 885, 886 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), aff’d
Barco v. Sch. Bd. of Pinellas Cty.
, 975 So. 2d 1116, 1124 (Fla. 2008).
Additionally, section 768.79, Florida Statutes, requires the party seeking fees
pursuant to an offer of judgment to file its motion for attorneys’ fees within
30 days after the entry of judgment or after voluntary or involuntary dismissal.
See § 768.79(6), Fla. Stat. (2016) (“Upon motion made by the offeror
within 30 days after the entry of judgment or after voluntary or involuntary
dismissal . . . .”).
In this case, the April 22 and May
13 motions were served after the 30-day time limit from the operative February
25 dismissal, so they were untimely.
We agree with appellants that our
award of appellate attorneys’ fees was not dependent upon their
entitlement to trial level attorneys’ fees. See Disney v. Vaughen, 804
So. 2d 581, 583 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (rejecting “Vaughen’s argument that
obtaining a ruling on a motion for trial attorney’s fees in the trial court is
necessary before a party may obtain appellate attorney’s fees.”); Spencer v.
Barrow
, 752 So. 2d 135, 138 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).
We therefore reverse the denial of
appellate attorneys’ fees and remand to the circuit court to determine
entitlement and, if appropriate, the amount. We note that in the first appeal,
little was required of the appellants (appellees in the first appeal). No
briefs were filed and appellants’ filings were few. (FORST and KUNTZ, JJ.,
concur.)
* * *

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Blog Archives

  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013

Footer

The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2021 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982