HEATHER WATSON, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH ROBERT WATSON, HER FATHER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Real Party In Interest cases and more on FLexlaw
[*688] PER CURIAM.
The final judgment in this action for the appellee, defendant below, states that the appellee “shall recover attorneys fees and taxable costs from Plaintiff, HEATHER WATSON, by and through ROBERT WATSON, her father, in the sum of $22,163.50, which shall bear interest at the rate of 12% per annum and for which sum let execution issue.”
Heather Watson had reached her majority at the time the final judgment was entered. On this appeal she argues that the provision in the final judgment for recovery of attorney’s fees and taxable costs should make it clear that the award is against only Heather Watson and not her father. When a minor is represented by a parent as “next friend,” the “next friend” is not a party to the action; the real party in interest is the minor. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.210(b); Youngblood v. Taylor, 89 So. 2d 503 (Fla.1956); Brown v. Caldwell, 389 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980).
We believe that the final judgment is correctly worded, but affirm with the clarification that the appellee is entitled to recover attorney’s fees and taxable costs from only the plaintiff Heather Watson and not from her father. Affirmed as clarified.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and PATTERSON and FULMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Parrish v. Price, 71 So. 3d 132 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…ble to all civil cases, provides that a minor cannot sue on his or her own behalf. Rather, suit must be instituted by an appointed representative or a “next friend,” such as a parent. See also Watson ex rel. Watson v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Thus, a child’s only vehicle for seeking protection under the domestic violence statute is through a petition filed by a next friend or representative. Indeed, several cases from this district involved domestic violence injuncti…
-
Kunz v. Sch. Bd. of Palm Beach Cnty., 237 So. 3d 1026 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)…or as next friend of W.K. Gilbertson v. Boggs, 743 So. 2d 123, 128 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), receded from on other grounds in Beckford v. Drogan, 216 So. 3d 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017); see also Watson By & Through Watson v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 687, 688 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Therefore, we proceed to the merits without altering the semantics of Kunz’s action on behalf of his child. 2 compelled appropriation to achieve a goal, and not a method of enforcement, it does not provide a private…
-
Am. Civil Liberties Union v. Miami-Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd., 439 F. Supp. 2d 1242 (S.D. Fla. 2006)…’s own status because he is a member of the ACLU; his- son is not. Defendants characterize Mr. Balzli’s procedural posture as one where he is a party in interest for the benefit of the ACLU’s standing. Watson v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 639 So.2d 687, 688 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (“[w]hen a minor is represented by a parent as ‘next friend,’ the ‘next friend’ is not a party to the action; the real party in interest is the minor.”). It is Defendants’ position that standing is lacking because Mr. Balzli’…
Authorities Cited
- Am. Cont'l, Inc. v. Bloomberg, 89 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 1956)
- Jerrie Douglas Brown v. Caldwell, 389 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)