CAROL LEGRAND AND DONALD LEE LEGRAND, APPELLANTS,
v.
CHARLES S. DEAN, AS SHERIFF OF CITRUS COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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 LeGrands appealed a judgment awarding attorney fees to Sheriff Dean following summary judgment in their false arrest case. The court affirmed the trial-level fees but reversed the appellate fees award, finding the trial court lacked jurisdiction to award fees for appellate services without a remand from the appellate court.
The court affirmed the $3,480 trial-level attorney fee award but reversed the $8,120 appellate fee award, finding the trial court lacked jurisdiction to award appellate fees absent a remand from the appellate court.
[1] A prior appellate decision affirming a trial court's judgment becomes the law of the case, precluding relitigation of issues decided or that could have been decided on th…
[2] A trial court lacks jurisdiction to award appellate attorney fees absent a specific remand of that issue from the appellate court.
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“The finding by the trial court that the case failed to present any justiciable issue of either law or fact was neither raised on appeal nor discussed in this court's 1990 opinion. That finding, therefore, becomes the law of the case.”
Establishes that the LeGrands' failure to challenge the no-justiciable-issue finding on their first appeal made it law of the case and barred them from raising it on the fees appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe LeGrands filed a false arrest and imprisonment action against Sheriff Dean in 1988. The trial court entered summary judgment for Dean, finding the…
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 Frivolous Litigation cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Judge.
The appellants, Carol and Donald Le-Grand, are appealing a judgment for attorney fees entered jointly against themselves and their trial attorney, Wilfred J. Florin.
The instant judgment is ancillary to an action filed in 1988 by the LeGrands against Charles S. Dean, as Sheriff of Citrus County, for false arrest and imprisonment. In that original action, a final summary judgment was entered for Dean. That judgment contained a finding that the LeGrands were liable for an attorney fee pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1987)1 because the case “presented a complete absence of any justiciable issue of either law or fact.” The trial judge retained jurisdiction as to the amount of the fee and the liability of plaintiffs’ counsel for the attorney fee, the latter issue turn ing on the attorney’s good faith and reliance on the representations of his clients.
The 1988 judgment was appealed to this court and, ultimately, affirmed en banc with one dissent. LeGrand v. Dean, 564 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), rev. denied, 576 So. 2d 288 (Fla.1991). The finding by the trial court that the case failed to present any justiciable issue of either law or fact was neither raised on appeal nor discussed in this court’s 1990 opinion. That finding, therefore, becomes the law of the case. No motion for attorney fees on appeal was filed.
Subsequent to the Florida Supreme Court’s denial of review on January 15, 1991, the trial judge held a hearing on the two issues he had reserved: the amount of the fee and the personal responsibility therefor of the LeGrands’ trial attorney, Florin.
At the hearing, counsel for the LeGrands attempted to reargue the issue of the Sheriff’s entitlement to a fee, but the trial judge properly rejected that argument on the basis of the law of the case. No evidence was adduced at the hearing that the attorney had acted on any misrepresentations by his clients. The trial judge entered a final judgment awarding Sheriff Dean a reasonable attorney’s fee of $3,480.00 for services through summary judgment and a fee of $8,120.00 for appellate services, for a total of $11,600.00 taxed jointly against the LeGrands and Florin. The LeGrands have appealed that judgment, but Florin has not.
On appeal, the LeGrands attempt to argue that “the underlying suit was very simply not frivolous.” But that is an issue which should have been raised in their 1988 appeal. See Strazzulla v. Hendrick, 177 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1965); Quast v. Quast, 498 So. 2d 1307 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), rev. denied, 508 So. 2d 15 (Fla.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 853, 108 S.Ct. 156, 98 L.Ed.2d 111 (1987). The LeGrands do not challenge the reasonableness of the fees awarded.
On the other hand, the trial judge clearly lacked jurisdiction to grant appellate attorney fees, absent a remand of that issue from this court. See Boyer v. Boyer, 588 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Hornsby v. Newman, 444 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). The award of the $8,120.00 fee constituted fundamental error. Consequently, we affirm the attorney fee award in the amount of $3,480.00 against the appellants and Florin, and reverse the $8,120.00 award for appellate fees.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED.
HARRIS and PETERSON, JJ., concur. . Section 57.105 provided:
Attorney’s fee. — The court shall award a reasonable attorney's fee to be paid to the prevailing party in equal amounts by the losing party and the losing party’s attorney in any civil action in which the court finds that there was a complete absence of a justiciable issue of either law or fact raised by the complaint or defense of the losing party; provided, however, that the losing party’s attorney is not personally responsible if he has acted in good faith, based on the representations of his client.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Respiratory Care Servs., Inc. v. Murray D. Shear, P.A., 715 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…of appellate attorney’s fees is appropriate, a mandate is issued to the trial court to impose the fees after conducting a hearing. Absent a mandate, the trial court has no jurisdiction to award appellate attorney’s fees. See e.g., Le Grand v. Dean, 598 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Real Estate Apartments, Ltd. v. Bayshore Garden Apartments, Ltd., 530 So. 2d 977 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). In this case, the appellees did not move this court for an award of fees, and no such mandate was issued. Nevertheless, appell…
-
Alvarez, Armas & Borron, P.A. v. Heitman, 770 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…for work done on her behalf on appeal. Mr. Velez argues, and we agree, that entitlement to appellate attorney’s fees must be determined by the appellate court. See Bird Lakes Dev. Corp. v. Meruelo, 626 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); LeGrand v. Dean, 598 So. 2d 218, 219 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992).1 The only appellate attorney’s fees this court has, awarded in connection with this probate litigation was for the work necessary by Ms. Heitman to respond to the motion for rehearing and rehearing en banc in In re Estate…
-
Adams v. Dickinson, 672 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…se the trial court lacked jurisdiction to award such fees. In this regard, our courts have consistently ruled that jurisdiction to determine a litigant’s entitlement to appellate attorneys’ fees lies solely with the appellate court. LeGrand v. Dean, 598 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). AFFIRMED. W. SHARP and HARRIS, JJ., concur. . § 319.231, Fla.Stat. (1991). . Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 establishes a cause of action for damages against state officials who have caused an individual to suffer constitutional dep…
Authorities Cited
- Strazzulla v. Hendrick, 177 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1965)
- Quast v. Quast, 484 U.S. 853 (U.S. 1987)
- Payne v. United States, 484 U.S. 853 (U.S. 1987)
- Hornsby v. Newman, 444 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- LeGRAND v. Dean, 564 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- Boyer v. Boyer, 588 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Quast v. Quast, 498 So. 2d 1307 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)