SAMUEL M. PUDER, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT REVITZ, FLAGLER CENTER BUILDING LOAN CORP., A FLORIDA CORPORATION D/B/A FLAGLER BUILDING CENTER, NUTTING ENGINEERS, INC., AND MAURICE NOBLE & ASSOCIATES, 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.
Samuel Puder sued to recover architectural fees for the Flagler Center Building project. After winning his fee claim at trial, Puder appealed orders awarding costs to third-party defendants he had sued for indemnification. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in taxing costs against Puder in favor of the successful third-party defendants.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding costs to the successful third-party defendants brought into the lawsuit by Puder. An award of costs rests within the trial court's sound discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing of abuse.
[1] An award of costs rests within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of a clear showing of an abuse of that discretio…
[2] A trial court does not abuse its discretion by taxing costs in favor of successful third-party defendants, who were brought into the lawsuit by a plaintiff, and refusing…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“An award of costs rests within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of a clear showing of an abuse of that discretion.”
Establishes the legal standard for reviewing cost awards on appeal
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePuder performed architectural services for the Flagler Center Building project. Revitz and Flagler counterclaimed against Puder for breach of contract…
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 Contribution cases and more on FLexlaw
HENDRY, Judge.
These consolidated appeals1 are the culmination of Samuel Puder’s suit against defendants Revitz and Flagler Center Building Corporation (Flagler) to recover the remaining balance of his architectural fee on the Flagler Center Building. Revitz and Flagler counterclaimed for breach of contract and negligence alleging that the work performed by Puder and his design team was defective. Puder, in turn, filed third party complaints for indemnity and contribution against M. Noble and Associates (structural engineers), Nutting Engineers (soil engineers), Jack Axelrod (the general contractor), and Raymond International (the pile drivers). The third party complaints alleged that if Flagler prevailed on its counterclaim, then these various parties were primarily responsible for damages while Puder was only vicariously or secondarily liable and entitled to indemnification from each. Various motions for summary judgment and judgment on the pleadings were denied and the case proceeded to trial on all issues.
After the jury returned a verdict for Puder on his claim against Revitz and Fla-gler for the balance of his architectural fee, and in his favor on the Revitz/Flagler counterclaim, the trial court entered an amended final judgment for Puder in the sum of $23,773.21 for professional fees, $7,298.33 in interest, and $60.50 as costs, plus a cost judgment in the amount of $31,701.76 to be assessed against Revitz and Flagler. The trial court also entered the following six orders from which Puder has appealed:
1. Final judgment for Noble & Associates on Puder’s third party claim;2
2. Order awarding costs to Noble against Puder;
3. Order awarding costs to Nutting Engineers against Puder;
4. Order denying Puder’s motion to tax costs and attorney’s fees awarded on behalf of Raymond International to Flagler Center;
5. Order denying Puder’s motion to tax costs awarded on behalf of Noble and Nutting to Flagler Center;
6. Order denying Puder’s motion to tax costs against Flagler Center. We have carefully considered the record, briefs, and argument of counsel in light of the controlling principles of law, and have concluded that no reversible error has been demonstrated. An award of costs rests within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of a clear showing of an abuse of that discretion. Warner v. Caldwell, 354 So. 2d 91 (Fla.3d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 361 So. 2d 836 (Fla.1978); White v. Means, 280 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973); General Capital Corp. v. Tel Service Co., Inc., 239 So. 2d 134 (Fla.2d DCA), cert. denied, 240 So. 2d 815 (Fla.1970). Appellant Puder has not clearly demonstrated that the trial court abused that discretion by taxing costs in favor of the successful third party defendants, who were brought into the lawsuit by Puder, and refusing to charge such costs against the defendant counterclaim-ants, Revitz and Flagler. Section 57.041, Florida Statutes (1979). Accordingly, we decline to disturb the trial court’s orders and affirm the judgments below in their entirety.
Affirmed.
. See Puder v. Raymond International Builders, Inc., 424 So. 2d 78 (Fla.3d DCA 1982) for additional background on this case.
. Puder did not appeal the final judgment entered in Nutting’s favor on the third party claim.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Oriental Imports, Inc. v. Rosario Alilin and E. Roger Alilin, M.D., 559 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…also followed by other courts. Dragstrem v. Butts, 370 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Warren Hunnicutt, Jr., Inc. v. Gleason, 462 So. 2d 878 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); A.M. Mfg., Inc. v. Baratz, 518 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). But see Puder v. Revitz, 424 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), and del Real, M.D. v. Dawson, 320 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). The determination of the amount and type of costs that are appropriate for the action in which they were incurred is the task of the trial court rather than the i…
-
Puder v. Raymond Int'l Builders, Inc., 424 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…d. . A second consolidated appeal was taken by Puder from subsequent orders entering final judgment for other third party defendants, taxing their costs against him, and denying his motion to tax costs against Flagler Center. See Puder v. Revitz, 424 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).…
-
Chivers v. Noelle Smith, 556 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…dent. Section 57.041, Florida Statutes, provides that a party “recovering judgment” shall recover costs. The wording of this statute is clear and unambiguous. This section applies to a recovery of costs by a third party defendant. Puder v. Revitz, 424 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). We deem Propst v. Neily, 467 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), relied upon by appellee and the trial court, to be inapposite to the recovery of costs under section 57.041. The appellants, having recovered judgment, even if the ju…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- White v. Means, 280 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)
- Gen. Cap. Corp. v. TEL Serv. Co., Inc., 239 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)
- Warner v. Caldwell, 354 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Puder v. Raymond Int'l Builders, Inc., 424 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Flickinger v. State, 240 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 1970)
- Gen. Cap. Corp. v. TEL Serv. Co., Inc., 240 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 1970)