ROBERT KIRKLAND AND BRENDA KIRKLAND, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
LEWIS STEVEN THURMOND, PATRICIA THURMOND, ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY AND MELODIE GRICE, 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 court held that while itemization of costs is strongly preferred, an order taxing costs will not be reversed if the record otherwise clearly indicates which items were allowed and disallowed.
The trial court entered an order taxing costs without itemizing each allowed and disallowed item. The appellant argued this failure prevented proper a…
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 Taxation Of Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
ZEHMER, Judge.
We review an order taxing costs upon appellees’ motion. The trial court allowed some costs, denied others, and merely entered an order awarding a certain amount without itemizing such costs.
Appellant contends that the trial court was required to issue an itemized order allowing or disallowing each item of cost requested, citing Sims v. Barnes, 289 So. 2d 753 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974), and Alwais v. McLane, 384 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980) (trial court’s failure to itemize costs was reversible error). Appellant further argues that the court’s failure to do so has made it impossible to obtain proper appellate review because appellant cannot determine which items were approved or disapproved. Appellees, on the other hand, contend there is no Florida case which holds that failure to itemize costs is per se reversible, because all that is required is a sufficient basis in the record to support the trial court’s exercise of discretion in taxing costs, citing Baker v. Varela, 416 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
We strongly emphasize that unless the trial court grants or denies the motion to tax costs in its entirety, the order should itemize those items allowed and those disallowed, and the amounts approved for each item. Such practice avoids needless appeals such as this, and more readily facilitates appellate review where there are genuine issues of dispute over allowable costs.
We affirm the appealed order, however, because we have encountered no difficulty in determining from the record which items and amounts were allowed. The trial judge made notations on the motions, checking each item allowed and placing an X by the items disallowed. The items so checked add up precisely to the amount of costs approved in the order. We find no error in the allowance of any of these items. Accordingly, the appealed order is
AFFIRMED.
BOOTH and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Trial Practices, Inc. v. Hahn Loeser & Parks, LLP, 228 So. 3d 1184 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…nc. v. Reddick, 954 So. 2d 723, 730 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (holding that the trial court erred by failing to itemize which costs it chose to allow or disallow, thereby precluding intelligent appellate review of the awarded costs); Kirkland v. Thurmond, 519 So. 2d 717, 718 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (explaining that “unless the trial court grants or denies [a] motion to tax costs in its entirety,” the trial court should itemize those costs “allowed and those disallowed [] and the amounts approved for each item” in order…
-
Flopro, LLC v. EOX Tech. Solutions, Inc., 375 So. 3d 904 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023)…ing $21,098.51 in its fees and costs judgment. This timely appeal follows. Analysis and Conclusion While the trial court did not itemize the remaining $21,098.51 figure, the record allows us to ascertain the breakdown. See Kirkland v. Thurmond, 519 So. 2d 717, 718 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (reversal was not required for cost order’s failure to itemize certain costs awarded where appellate court “encountered no difficulty in determining from the record which items and amounts were allowed”). Based on our revie…
-
Venice Graham v. Randolph Constr. Grp., Inc. (Fla. 4th DCA 2020)
Authorities Cited
- Pinkney v. Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 416 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Sims v. Barnes, 289 So. 2d 753 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Sydney Alwais v. McLANE, 384 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Freeman v. State, 384 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)