CYNTHIA KELLY
v.
HAIM COHEN-SABAN
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.
Kelly v. Cohen-Saban concerns competing breach of lease claims where the trial court denied both parties' motions for attorney's fees and also denied Kelly's motion for costs as premature. The appellate court affirmed the denial of attorney's fees but reversed the denial of costs, holding that Kelly's motion was timely under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525.
The trial court erred in finding Kelly's motion for costs was premature. Under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525, a motion for costs must be served within 30 days after filing of the judgment, establishing the latest point for filing such a motion. The case is remanded to apply the 'party recovering judgment' standard in determining Kelly's entitlement to costs.
[1] A motion for costs is not premature if filed before the entry of judgment, as Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525 establishes the latest point at which a prevailing par…
[2] Section 57.041, Florida Statutes, mandates the award of costs to the party recovering judgment.
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“Any party seeking a judgment taxing costs . . . shall serve a motion no later than 30 days after filing of the judgment . . .”
Establishes the procedural requirement that motions for costs must be filed within 30 days of judgment, not before judgment is entered
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAfter a verdict was returned in a breach of lease dispute, Kelly moved for attorney's fees and costs, arguing she was the prevailing party entitled to…
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
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT
CYNTHIA KELLY, Appellant,
V.
HAIM COHEN-SABAN, Appellee.
Nos. 4D2024-1561 and 4D2024-1565
[February 25, 2026]
Consolidated appeals from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Jaimie R. Goodman, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2020-CA-014553-XXXX-MB.
Ian P. Singer and Carmen Y. Cartaya of Segal McCambridge Singer Mahoney, Ltd., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
Scott M. Behren of Behren Law Firm, Weston, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
This appeal arises out of the appellant's claim and the appellee's counterclaim, both for breach of lease. We affirm the trial court's denial of both parties' motions for attorneys' fees, but we reverse the trial court's denial of the appellant's motion for costs.
After the return of the verdict, the appellant moved for attorney's fees and costs. With respect to the appellant's motion for costs, she argued that pursuant to section 57.041, Florida Statutes (2020), she is entitled to costs as the prevailing party. The trial court did not address the motion for costs until the court issued an order on the appellant's motion for rehearing. The court denied the motion for rehearing, finding the motion for costs was filed before judgment was entered and thus the motion for costs was premature. However, the denial was without prejudice to the appellant to refile her motion for costs.
The trial court erred in finding the motion for costs was premature. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.525 (“Any party seeking a judgment taxing costs . . . shall serve a motion no later than 30 days after filing of the judgment . . . .”); Swift v. Wilcox, 924 So. 2d 885, 886-87 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (holding that rule 1.525 “establishes the latest point at which a prevailing party may serve a motion for fees and costs” (quoting Norris v. Treadwell, 907 So. 2d 1217, 1218 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005))).¹
We remand to the trial court to apply the “party recovering judgment” standard in considering the appellant's motion for costs. See Sherman v. Sherman, 279 So. 3d 188, 193 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (recognizing that section 57.041 mandates the award of costs to the “party recovering judgment").
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
CIKLIN, LEVINE and SHAW, JJ., concur. * * *