ALTAMONTE HITCH AND TRAILER SERVICE, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION AND C.R. FOREMAN, APPELLANTS,
v.
U-HAUL COMPANY OF EASTERN FLORIDA, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND AMERCO, INC., A FOREIGN CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
The Florida appellate court resolved a jurisdictional question regarding whether it could review an attorney's fees and costs award that failed to distinguish between trial and appellate work. The court held that such orders are final and appealable, allowing meaningful review only if the trial court properly apportions fees between trial and appellate phases.
An order granting attorney's fees and costs after entry of final judgment is a final appealable order sufficient to support a full appeal, not merely a non-final order. Appellants are entitled to intelligent appellate review of such awards, which requires the trial court to apportion the fees between appellate and trial work.
[1] An order granting attorney's fees and costs after entry of a final judgment is a final appealable order.
[2] A party may seek review of an order awarding attorney's fees and costs for trial work, even if a prior motion for review of the same order was denied.
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“An order granting attorney's fees and costs after entry of a final judgment is a final appealable order.”
Establishes that fee awards following final judgments are final and appealable, distinguishing them from non-final orders.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFollowing a prior appeal, the appellate court remanded for the trial court to award attorney's fees and costs. The trial court entered an award of $9,…
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 Award Of Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
SHARP, Judge.
Following an appeal to this court, we remanded the proceeding to the trial court to award attorney’s fees and costs on appeal. The trial court had reserved jurisdiction to award attorney’s fees and costs for tile trial phase. It then entered an award of $9,566.40 for costs and attorney’s fees, but failed to distinguish what amounts were awarded for appellate or trial work.
Appellants filed a timely motion for review pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.400(c).1 This court denied the relief requested on August 21, 1985, thereby apparently affirming the award. Appellants now seek review of the same order pursuant to Rule 9.130(a)(4) as a non-final order.2 Appellees argue that appellants have no right to have this same order reviewed a second time on the merits. We disagree.
An order granting attorney’s fees and costs after entry of a final judgment is a final appealable order. Clearwater Federal Savings and Loan Association v. Sampson, 336 So. 2d 78 (Fla.1976); Hubert v. Div. of Admin., State of Florida D.O.T., 425 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Saul v. Basse, 399 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); State Department of Citrus v. Griffin, 332 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); Kucera v. Kucera, 330 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). They are not technically “non-final” orders, since all judicial labor regarding their, entry has been completed. These awards pertain to attorney’s fees incurred at the trial level following a final decree. They are sufficient to support a full appeal.
In contrast, Rule 9.400(c) specifically provides the review method to be employed for attorney’s fees awarded for appellate work when the appellate court makes an award but opts to have the trial court assess the amounts.
Here appellant pursued both remedies in a timely fashion by seeking review under both rules. Due to the nature of this court’s organization, the motion was ruled on first. The appeal pertaining to attorney’s fees for trial work has just now reached a different panel of judges for disposition.
The difficulty in this case, as well as in the case of the motion made pursuant to Rule 9.400, is that we can undertake no meaningful review of the sums awarded because the lower court failed to stipulate in its order what amounts awarded pertain to appellate fees and costs as opposed to trial fees and costs. Appellants are entitled to have these matters intelligently reviewed and this remedy should not be foreclosed to them because of the form of the order.
Accordingly, we remand this cause to the trial court for a period of thirty days for the purpose of apportioning attorney’s fees and costs awarded between appellate and trial work. Thereafter, this proceeding shall continue in the form of a final appeal, with briefs and a record to be timely submitted in accordance with the appellate rules commencing from the date of the order apportioning fees. Further, in the interest of justice, at appellants’ option, they may seek review of the appellate fees awarded pursuant to Rule 9.400(c), after the order is entered in its new form.
REMANDED.
DAUKSCH and UPCHURCH, JJ., concur. . "Review of orders rendered pursuant to this rule shall be by motion filed in the court within 30 days of rendition." Rule 9.400(c).
. “Non-final orders entered after final order on motions which suspend rendition are not reviewable; provided that orders granting motions for new trial in jury and non-jury cases are reviewable by the method prescribed in Rule 9.110. Other non-final orders entered after final order on authorized motions are reviewable by the method prescribed by this rule.” Rule 9.130(a)(4).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Dependable Life Ins. Co. v. Harris, 510 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)…d actual damages, which involved coverage under the policy, we must remand to the lower court for apportionment of attorney’s fees between the tort and contract awards. See Alta-monte Hitch and Trailer Service, Inc. v. U-Haul Co. of Eastern Florida, 483 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment in all regards, but we reverse the award of attorney’s fees. AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART. UPCHURCH, C.J., and ORFINGER, J., concur. . Higbee v. Dorigo, 66 So. 2d 684 (Fla.1953); Pap…
-
Altamonte Hitch & Trailer Serv., Inc. v. U-Haul Co. OF E. Fla., 498 So. 2d 1346 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)…rties recovering judgment on the complaint, they are entitled to this award. REVERSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART. UPCHURCH, C.J., and DAUKSCH, J., concur. . Altamonte Hitch & Trailer Service, Inc. v. U-Haul Co. of Eastern Florida and Amerco, Inc., 483 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). . Altamonte Hitch & Trailer Service, Inc. v. U-Haul Co. of Eastern Florida and Amerco, Inc., 468 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 476 So. 2d 672 (Fla.1985). . Fla.R.App.P. 9.400(b) and Committee Note (b). . Id. . If…
-
Charles Morand, M.D. v. Stoneburner, 516 So. 2d 270 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)…e Corporation, Ltd. v. Kellin, 391 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). A subsequently entered judgment awarding attorney’s fees and costs is itself a final appealable order. Altamonte Hitch and Trailer Service, Inc. v. U-Haul Company of Eastern Florida, 483 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). Because the notice of appeal on this case was filed more than 30 days following the rendition of the final judgment, we have no jurisdiction of the appeal. APPEAL DISMISSED. UPCHURCH, C.J., and DAUKSCH, J., concur. ON MOTION…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Clearwater Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Sampson, 336 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 1976)
- Saul v. Basse, 399 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)
- Kucera v. Kucera, 330 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Hubert v. Division OF Administration, 425 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- State v. Griffin, 332 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)