BILL ELECTRICAL
v.
AZTIL
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.
Bill's Electrical sued Aztil for unpaid electrical services. The trial court found Bill's failed to prove the full amount claimed but acknowledged Aztil owed $1,500 of the estimated price, ordering payment within fifteen days with notice that failure would result in final judgment. The appellate court reversed, holding that Bill's motion for rehearing did not toll the payment deadline and Aztil's late payment rendered it in default.
The appellate court held that filing a motion for rehearing did not stay the time period for compliance with the June 20, 2007 order because that order was neither an execution nor final process as contemplated by Rule 1.550(a). Accordingly, Aztil's July 27 payment was untimely, and the lower court erred in not entering final judgment for $1,500.
[1] A motion for rehearing does not automatically stay an order directing a party to tender funds, unless the order constitutes execution or final process.
[2] The filing of a motion for rehearing does not toll the time period for compliance with a court order that is not an execution or final process.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Filing the motion for rehearing did not stay the time period during which the funds were to be tendered.”
Establishes the core holding that Rule 1.550(a) does not apply because the June 20 order was not an execution or final process.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAztil hired Bill's Electrical to provide electrical parts and services under a $3,000 estimate. Bill's billed $6,379 for the completed work; Aztil had…
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 Appellate Attorney'S Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA.
AZTIL, INC., Appellee.
BY ORDER OF THE COURT:
THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Appellant's Motion for Rehearing on Motion for Attorneys' Fees, filed December 29, 2008. Appellant filed a motion for appellate attorneys' fees on October 30, 2008. Pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.400(b), a motion for appellate attorneys' fees may be served no later than the time for service of the reply brief. The reply brief shall be served within twenty days of service of the answer brief. Fla. R. App. P. 9.210(f). In this case, the answer brief was served on July 7, 2008. The fee request was not served by July 27, 2008, and was instead served over three months late. Thus, Appellant's motion for appellate attorneys' fees was denied as untimely.
Appellant argues that the Court's September 8, 2008 order directing Appellant to supplement the record on appeal extended the time period in which it could file its request for appellate attorneys' fees. Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.300(b) provides that an order granting an extension of time for the filing of the transcript of proceedings extends the time for service of Appellant's initial brief. This rule does not apply to extend the time for filing the reply brief. The reply brief was already past-due, as was the motion for appellate attorney's fees, when Appellant requested the extension of time. Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Motion for Rehearing on Motion for Attorneys' Fees is DENIED.
ORDERED: JAN 1 2 2009
EDWARD A. GARRISON CIRCUIT JUDGE
EDWARD H. FINE CIRCUIT JUDGE
THOMAS H. BARKDULL CIRCUIT JUDGE
CC: Mark W. Rickard, Esq., Jacobson, Sobo, & Moselle, P.O. Box 19359, Plantation, FL 33318-0359. Richard W. Glenn, Esq., 11382 Prosperity Farms Road, Building F-22, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410.
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
PAUL THIBADEAU and THERESE THIBADEAU, Petitioners,
V.
TOWN OF JUPITER, FLORIDA, Respondent.
Opinion filed: August 24, 2009 / Appeal from the Town of Jupiter Town Council, Florida.
✓ For Petitioner:
For Respondent:
APPELLATE DIVISION (CIVIL) CASE NO.: 502008CA038657XXXXMB Appealed from the Town of Jupiter Town Council, Florida
Paul Thibade:.!!. Esq., pro se, 205 Worth Avenue, Suite 306 Palm Beach, FI. 33480
Thomas J. Baird, Esq., Karen E. Roselli, Esq., 11891 North U.S. Highway One, Suite 100, North Palm Beach, FL 33408
PER CURIAM.
The Petition for Writ of Certiorari is DENIED.
BARKDULL, HAFELE, and SASSER, JJ., concu:.
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA. NICOLE HANAK, Petitioner,
VS.
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES Respondent,
Opinion filed: DEC 1 7 2007 /
Appellate Division (Civil) Case No.: 502007CA010543XXXXMB Division.: 'AY'
FILED CIRCUIT CIVIL PALM BEACH COUNTY SHARON R. BOCK. CLERK 2007 DEC 17 PM 3:31
Review sought of the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision of DHSMV Hearing Officer, Donna George.
For Petitioner:
Donna P. Levine, Esq. 324 Datura Street, Suite 145 West Palm Beach, Florida, 33401
For Respondent:
Heather Rose Cramer, Esq. DHSMV, 6801 Lake Worth Road, Suite 230 Lake Worth, Florida, 33467
PER CURIAM.
The Petition for Writ of Certiorari is DENIED.
MCCARTHY, ROSENBERG, and WINIKOFF, JJ. concur. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA.
Appellate Division (Civil) Case No.: 502007AP000190XXXXMB L.T.: 502005CC007467XXXXMB Division: 'AY'
Marlene - Here's copies of the opinions Per email-alog in 10۲۲۰۰۰۰۰۰ Bell's Electric 6 ad to be posted, too. Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410. ity, Do, & Moselle, P.O. Box 19359, rity Farms Road, Building F-22,
REVERSED and REMANDED.
Aztil, Inc. ("Aztil") hired Bill's Electrical & Computer Service, Inc. ("Bill's") to provide electrical parts and services. Bill's completed the work, and filed suit to obtain $6,379.00 when Aztil refused to pay more than $3,000.00, which was the amount of the estimate. Although the trial court found that Bill's failed to prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence, it was undisputed that Aztil had previously paid $1,500.00 toward the contract price, and that it still owed Bill's the remaining $1,500 balance on the estimate. On June 20, 2007, the lower court directed Aztil to "forward the previously tendered $1,500.00 to [Bill's] within fifteen (15) days of this order. Upon an affidavit of non-payment of this amount filed by the Plaintiff, with a copy
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA.
Appellate Division (Civil) Case No.: 502007 AP000190XXXXMB L.T.: 502005CC007467XXXXMB Division: 'AY'
AZTIL, INC., Appellee.
Opinion filed: December 19, 2008