A. Z., A CHILD, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, ET AL., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A mother who prevailed in a prior appeal sought to recover appellate costs including filing fees, witness fees, and transcript costs. The juvenile court denied her motion relying on Fla. Stat. § 39.414, which prohibits court fees and witness fees in juvenile proceedings. The appellate court reversed, holding that while statutory provisions bar certain court and witness fees at trial and on appeal, other costs allowable under appellate rules—such as transcript costs—remain awardable to the prevailing party.
The court reversed and remanded, holding that while Fla. Stat. § 39.414 preempts recovery of court fees and witness fees in juvenile proceedings both at trial and on appeal, other costs on appeal allowable under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.400(a)—such as transcript costs—are not covered by the statute and therefore remain awardable to the prevailing party in the trial court's discretion.
[1] Statutes governing juvenile proceedings may preempt the recovery of court fees and witness fees, even on appeal.
[2] Costs on appeal, such as the cost of a transcript, are not necessarily barred by statutes that prohibit court fees and witness fees in juvenile proceedings.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“In all proceedings under this chapter, no court fees shall be charged against, and no witness fees shall be allowed to, any party to a petition or any parent or legal custodian or child named in a summons.”
Statutory language of Fla. Stat. § 39.414 that bars recovery of court fees and witness fees in juvenile proceedings
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant was the mother of A.Z., a juvenile in a dependency proceeding. In a prior appeal, the appellant had been the prevailing party and obtain…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Appellate Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
SHARP, Judge.
Appellant, the mother of A. Z., a juvenile, argues the juvenile court erred in denying her motion to tax costs against the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.400(a).1 In a prior appeal2 appellant had been the prevailing party obtaining the reversal of the lower court’s adjudication of dependency. The appellant sought to recover the following “costs”:
(a) Clerk, Circuit Court — filing fee
(b) Clerk, Court of Appeal — filing fee
(c) Appearance fees and mileage fees, for subpoenas for four witnesses
(d) Transcript
(e) Fee in Circuit Court for indexing record
(f) Additional Circuit Court fee for indexing record
She contends all were necessary to perfect this appeal because the lower court failed to have the hearing transcribed.
The order of the trial judge states that the appellant’s motion was denied3 because section 39.414, Florida Statutes (1979) bars recovery of court fees or witness fees in all juvenile proceedings pursuant to Chapter 39, Florida Statutes (1979):
In all proceedings under this chapter, no court fees shall be charged against, and no witness fees shall be allowed to, any party to a petition or any parent or legal custodian or child named in a summons. . . .
This section appears to preempt and control the question of court fees and witness fees at trial, and on appeal. However, other costs on appeal allowable under Rule 9.400(a), such as the cost of the transcript, are not covered, and therefore they would be awardable to the prevailing party, in the discretion of the lower court.
We reverse the lower court’s denial of the appellant’s motion to tax costs and remand this matter to the lower court for further consideration.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
COBB and COWART, JJ., concur. . Both parties agree appellant is not seeking to impose costs on Ms. Waskiewicz, the “petitioner” who signed the delinquency petition for the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services as its employee.
. A. Z. v. State, 383 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).
. Appellant filed an appeal from the denial of her motion for costs. However, the proper method for review of orders granting or denying appellate parties’ costs pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.400(a), is to file a motion for review in the appellate court. Fla.R.App.P. 9.400(c). We therefore treated the notice of appeal as a proper motion in accordance with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.040(c), and ordered the proceeding consolidated with the prior appeal.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re the Interest of M.P. v. Lake Cnty., 453 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)…he judgment in all cases except those specifically exempted. The exemptions in the statutes do not include the State or its agencies and we can find no basis for reading such an exemption into the ... act. 234 So. 2d at 351. See also A.Z. v. State, 404 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) (recognizing that certain costs are available in a juvenile proceeding, after appeal, in the discretion of the lower court). Apparently, the parents of the children in the instant case were indigent and unable to provide reimbur…
-
Starcher v. Starcher, 430 So. 2d 991 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)…riking this portion of the appellant’s brief and create an exception to the Rule and decide that under these circumstances a party can, as an' alternative to motion review within 30 days of rendition, raise the point in an appeal. See A.Z. v. State, 404 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). See also Fla.R.App.P. 9.400(c). We do this based on these factors: (a) The appellee will not suffer any harm or prejudice. If anything it will be to his benefit as it will only serve to postpone the due date for him to pay his w…
-
Browning v. NEW Hope South, 785 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…284 (“Although an appeal is not the proper remedy, the filing of an appeal in this case does not foreclose the right of review.”). See generally Packal, 512 So. 2d at 347; Starcher v. Starcher, 430 So. 2d 991, 993 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); A.Z. v. State, 404 So. 2d 386, 387 n. 3 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- In re The Interest of A. Z. v. State, 383 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)