JOHN W. ROHRBACK, APPELLANT,
v.
REVA-MAX, INC. AND CYPRESS SQUARE DEVELOPMENT, LTD., 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.
Plaintiff Rohrback prevailed on a quantum meruit claim against defendants Reva-Max and Cypress Square Development. On appeal, the court reversed the trial court's orders awarding costs to defendants and denying plaintiff's expert witness fees, holding that defendants were not prevailing parties entitled to costs and that plaintiff's expert fees were properly attributable to the successful quantum meruit claim.
Defendants were not prevailing parties and therefore not entitled to costs. The trial court erred in denying expert witness fees to the plaintiff, as the expert testimony was properly utilized in determining the successful quantum meruit award. The trial court must on remand determine what portion of expert fees is assignable to the quantum meruit award and assess their reasonableness.
[1] A party cannot appeal a trial court's ruling on costs and fees until the trial court has entered a final order on those matters.
[2] A defendant is not a prevailing party entitled to costs when the plaintiff is awarded damages on a quantum meruit claim arising from the same facts as a rejected breach o…
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“the defendants were not prevailing parties and were not, therefore, entitled to have any costs assessed in their favor”
Establishes that only prevailing parties may recover costs, and defendants did not prevail since plaintiff succeeded on quantum meruit
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff initiated a complaint against defendants alleging breach of contract, fraud, and quantum meruit. Defendants did not assert counterclaims. Th…
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 Prevailing Party Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
NESBITT, Judge.
The prevailing plaintiff appeals from orders granting defendants’ cost judgment and denying his motion to tax expert witness fees. We reverse.
The plaintiff initiated a complaint against the defendants requesting damages under claims of breach of contract, fraud, and quantum meruit. The defendants did not assert any counterclaims.
The trial court determined that the plaintiff should recover solely quantum meruit and reserved jurisdiction to rule on the parties’ motions for costs. The plaintiff appealed the judgment before the trial court had entered any order on the merits of the defendants’ claims for costs and fees. See Rohrback v. Dauer, 528 So. 2d 1362 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988).
Consequently, this appeal represents an attack upon the post-judgment ruling for costs.
Therefore, defendants’ reliance upon Commodore Plaza at Century 21, etc. v. Cohen, 350 So. 2d 502, 506 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), cert, denied, 362 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 1978), is misplaced. In that case, we determined that a tenant who had not challenged a trial court’s jurisdiction to award interest and attorney's fees prior to the hearing thereon, could not raise that issue on appeal. Here, it would have been premature to challenge the rulings on the motions for costs until those matters had been determined and settled.
Thus, having determined that we are not foreclosed from reviewing the plaintiff’s claim, under the rationale of Hendry Tractor Co. v. Fer nandez, 432 So. 2d 1315 (Fla.1983), we hold that the defendants were not prevailing parties and were not, therefore, entitled to have any costs assessed in their favor. For this reason, that order is reversed.
On the plaintiff’s second claim, we agree that the trial court erred in denying the plaintiff any award for the fees of his expert witness. That expert testified as to the value of what the plaintiff would have received under the terms of the express contract with the defendants. It is clear that notwithstanding the fact that the jury in a special interrogatory verdict rejected the plaintiff’s claim for breach of contract, that same expert witness’s evaluation also went to and was properly utilized by the jury in determining the quantum meruit award arising out of the same facts and circumstances. See Hazen v. Cobb, 96 Fla. 151, 117 So. 853, 858 (1928); Quayside Assocs. Ltd. v. Triefler, 506 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).
For this reason, the denial •of expert witness fees to the plaintiff is reversed. On remand, the trial court will be required to determine what portion of the expert witness fees is properly assignable to the quantum meruit award and the reasonableness of those fees.
For the foregoing reasons, the orders under review are reversed with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hazen v. Cobb, 96 Fla. 151 (Fla. 1928)
- Hendry Tractor Co. v. Fernandez, 432 So. 2d 1315 (Fla. 1983)
- Commodore Plaza AT Century 21 Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Cohen, 350 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Quayside Assocs., Ltd. v. Triefler, 506 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Mortell v. Keith, 528 So. 2d 1362 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Rohrback v. Maxwell Dauer, 528 So. 2d 1362 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)