SCHOOL BOARD OF ALACHUA COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
DARNELL RHEA, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 1995-09-22
No. 94-4161
BOOTH, MINER and MICKLE, JJ., concur.
661 So. 2d 331 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1995) Positive Treatment
Cited by 5 cases

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.

Synopsis

The School Board of Alachua County appeals a trial court order awarding appellate attorney's fees to Darnell Rhea in a Government in the Sunshine Law case. The appellate court reverses the fee award, holding that mandatory language in the statute does not bypass the procedural requirement to file a motion for appellate fees in accordance with the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.


Holding

The mandatory language in section 286.011(4) does not supersede the procedural requirements of Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.400(b), and appellate attorney's fees may only be recovered in accordance with the appellate rules. The trial court lacks authority to award appellate attorney's fees in the first instance; such fees must be sought through proper appellate procedures.


Headnotes

[1] A trial court cannot award appellate attorney's fees in the first instance when the relevant statute does not supersede appellate rules governing such awards.

[2] Recovery of appellate attorney's fees under statutes with mandatory language, such as the Government in the Sunshine Law, requires compliance with Florida Rule of Appella…

Previewing 2 of 4 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

Key Quotes

“We reject Rhea's argument that the mandatory language in § 286.011(4)— 'the court shall assess a reasonable attorney's fee' — indicates that appellate fees are awarded automatically without the need for a motion in the appellate court.”

Establishes that statutory mandatory language does not eliminate the procedural requirement to file a motion in the appellate court for appellate fees.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Rhea sued the School Board alleging a violation of Florida's Government in the Sunshine Law (section 286.011) when the Board held a workshop outside A…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

The School Board of Alachua County (the Board) appeals the trial court’s order directing it to pay ••Darnell Rhea’s appellate attorney’s fees. For the reasons set out below, we must reverse the award of appellate fees. Rhea brought suit against the Board for an alleged violation of section 286.011, Florida Statutes (1991), which is commonly known as the “Government in the Sunshine Law.” The trial court granted summary judgment for the Board, finding that the Board’s holding a workshop outside Alachua County did not violate the statutory requirement that meetings of state, county and municipal boards or commissions be open to the public. On appeal, this court reversed the summary judgment, concluding “that the Board’s workshop held at a hotel in Orlando ... did not afford the citizens of Alachua County a reasonable opportunity to attend.” Rhea v. School Bd. of Alachua County, 686 So. 2d 1383, 1386 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). The case was remanded to the trial court “for consistent proceedings.” Rather than file a timely motion for appellate attorney’s fees, Rhea waited until after the mandate issued, and then asked this court to recall its mandate and direct the trial court to award appellate fees. Rhea’s request was denied.

On remand to the trial court, Rhea filed a motion for appellate attorney’s fees pursuant to § 286.011(4).1 The trial court granted the motion and awarded appellate fees, concluding that it was authorized by § 286.011(4) to award such fees in the first instance.

We reject Rhea’s argument that the mandatory language in § 286.011(4)— “the court shall assess a reasonable attorney’s fee” — indicates that appellate fees are awarded automatically without the need for a motion in the appellate court. In Downs v. Austin, 569 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 574 So. 2d 140 (Fla.1990), this court held that section 119.12, Florida Statutes (1985), which employs identical mandatory language to authorize recovery of attorney’s fees in public records cases, only permits the recovery of appellate attorney’s fees in accordance with the appellate rules. In short, the mandatory language does not supersede the requirements of Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.400(b) pertaining to the award of attorney’s fees. See also Salley v. City of St. Petersburg, 511 So. 2d 975 (Fla.1987) (despite mandatory language in the attorney’s fee statute, the appellate court may deny fees where the party seeking fees fails to file a motion in accordance with rule 9.400(b)).

As in Downs, Rhea failed to seek a fee in accordance with the appellate rules, and this court properly denied Rhea’s nonconforming motion. Section 286.011(4) does not supersede the appellate rules, nor does it authorize the trial court to make an initial award of appellate attorney’s fees.

Accordingly, the trial court’s order awarding appellate attorney’s fees is reversed.

BOOTH, MINER and MICKLE, JJ., concur. . Section 286.011(4) provides in pertinent part: Whenever an action has been filed against ... any agency or authority of any county, municipal corporation, or political subdivision to enforce the provisions of this section ... and the court determines that the defendant or defendants to such action acted in violation of this section, the court shall assess a reasonable attorney's fee against such agency....


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)
    …e procedural requirements of rule 9.400(b). Even where a fee award is mandatory, a motion for appellate fees must be filed pursuant to rule 9.400(b). Salley v. City of St. Petersburg, 511 So. 2d 975 (Fla.1987); School Bd. of Alachua County v. Rhea, 661 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995), rev. denied, 670 So. 2d 939 (Fla.1996). Under section 768.79, an award of attorney’s fees is mandatory if the statutory requirements in subsections (6)(a) or (b) are satisfied and if the offer of judgment was made in good faith.…
  • Moyer v. Fla. Dep't of Transp., 130 So. 3d 283 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)
    …ney’s fees in his initial brief. Because he failed to file a motion in accordance with Rule 9.400(b), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, Moyer has waived any entitlement to appellate attorney’s fees. See, e.g., Sch. Bd. of Alachua County v. Rhea, 661 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995), reh’g denied. Furthermore, the recovery of attorney’s fees at any level requires a substantive legal basis for the award. See Westinghouse Elec. v. Widlan, 623 So. 2d 511, 514 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Moyer has presented this court…
  • …nor did it reference the contingency fee agreement at issue here. The motion was denied under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.400. 2 Rambaum did not file a motion for attorneys' fees in case 2D19- 3484. See Sch. Bd. of Alachua Cnty. v. Rhea, 661 So. 2d 331, 332 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (holding that where party failed to seek a fee in accordance with the appellate rules, the trial court is not authorized to make an award of appellate attorneys' fees). part, constitute post[]judgment actions that necessita…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw