STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, APPELLANT,
v.
D.J.P. ASSOCIATES, INC.; ROBERT H. YORK AND JOAN S. YORK, 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.
The Florida Department of Transportation's appeal of an attorney's fees award in an eminent domain action is reversed and remanded because the trial judge's decision was not accurately codified in the final order, creating ambiguity about whether a fee enhancement was intended or resulted from a miscalculation.
When a trial judge's oral or written decision is not accurately reflected in the final order, the appellate court must reverse and remand for the trial judge to clarify the intended decision.
[1] When a trial judge's decision is announced in writing but subsequently codified in a final order with material discrepancies, the appellate court must reverse and remand…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn an eminent domain action, Judge Pyle announced his decision in a letter to the parties regarding attorney's fees. Judge Dewell subsequently entered…
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 Eminent Domain Action cases and more on FLexlaw
BLUE, Judge.
The Department of Transportation appeals an,order awarding attorney’s fees and costs to Robert and Joan York in an eminent domain action. Of the several points raised by the department, we agree only that the original judge’s decision does not appear to be accurately codified in the final order. For that reason, we reverse.
Judge Robert E. Pyle, who conducted the hearing in this matter, announced his decision in a letter to the parties. Judge John H. Dewell subsequently entered an order that purportedly implemented Judge Pyle’s decision. Although a fee enhancement is not mentioned in the letter, the order awarded an enhancement of $1500 in order to reach the full amount of money that Judge Pyle determined to be a reasonable total fee. A question exists regarding whether Judge Pyle intended an enhancement or whether he mistakenly computed the total fee award based on a miscalculation of the number of hours involved. Because of this ambiguity regarding the intended decision, we reverse and remand for Judge Pyle to review the record and his letter of decision and enter an order accordingly. In all other respects, the order is affirmed.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded with directions.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and THREADGILL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Elliot Reno Whatley v. State, 679 So. 2d 1269 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…he enhancement. . In a second appeal, Whatley’s sentences were affirmed; however, the matter was remanded for the judgment to designate the burglary offense to be a first degree felony punishable by life rather than a life felony. Whatley v. State, 640 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). . See Bronson v. State, 654 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Watson v. State, 646 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). See also Febles v. State, 654 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (conviction for burglary with an assault and conviction f…
-
McAFFEE v. State, 208 So. 3d 747 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See § 775.084(4)(e), Fla. Stat. (1993); Duncan v. Moore, 754 So. 2d 708 (Fla.2000); Deason v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 705 So. 2d 1374 (Fla.1998); Hayles v. State, 608 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1992); Whatley v. State, 640 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Lincoln v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 643 So. 2d 668 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Orr v. State, 597 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). KHOUZAM, SLEET, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.…
-
McCLOUD v. State, 202 So. 3d 104 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…State, 60 So. 3d 1045 (Fla.2011); Betancourt v. State, 804 So. 2d 313 (Fla.2001); Allen v. State, 599 So. 2d 996 (Fla.1992); Copeland v. State, 118 So. 3d 842 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013); Mosely v. State, 688 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Whatley v. State, 640 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Labadie v. State, 840 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Foss v. State, 834 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); McMillan v. State, 832 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Hart v. State, 761 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Knickerbocker v. S…