VICTORIA B. BARNES, WILLIAM R. BARNES, JAMES H. BARNHILL, CONSTANCE A. BARNHILL, EARL G. BUELOW, H. LORRAINE BUELOW, HARRIETT B. GARRISON, EDWARD R. GRAMKOWSKI, BEVERLY J. GRAMKOWSKI, ALBERT M. IOSUE, RUSSELL ISHAM, SALLY ISHAM, ROBERT KENDALL, ALFRED H. KLOPFER, INGE KLOPFER, DANIEL B. MULLETT, MARSHA P. MULLETT, DONALD NIKOLAUS, EDITH J. NIKOLAUS, CLEMENT STORY, III, MERRILYN C. STORY, DONALD L. TYLER, MICHAELENE TYLER, GERALD J. WOITAS, AND NANCY C. WOITAS, APPELLANTS,
v.
CITY OF DUNEDIN AND PINELLAS COUNTY, 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.
Homeowners appealed a trial court's order awarding costs to the City of Dunedin and Pinellas County following the homeowners' voluntary dismissal of their nuisance and inverse condemnation claims. The appellate court affirmed the timeliness of the cost motions but remanded to strike improperly awarded attorney travel expenses.
The court affirmed that the cost motions were timely filed but remanded to strike attorney travel expenses from the cost awards. Attorney travel expenses are generally not taxable under the Statewide Uniform Guidelines for Taxation of Costs unless provided for by contract or statute.
[1] Motions to tax costs filed after a voluntary dismissal are timely if filed within the period prescribed by rule.
[2] Travel expenses incurred by attorneys are generally not taxable as costs unless provided for by contract or statute.
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“Generally, the Statewide Uniform Guidelines for Taxation of Costs do not allow for the taxation of costs for travel expenses incurred by attorneys.”
Establishes the general rule against taxing attorney travel expenses as costs.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTwenty-seven homeowner-plaintiffs filed a complaint against the City of Dunedin and Pinellas County in June 1989 alleging nuisance and inverse condemn…
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 Statewide Uniform Guidelines For Taxation Of Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
QUINCE, Judge.
The appellants, homeowners, seek relief from a final judgment taxing costs after the entry of a voluntary dismissal. We affirm the trial court’s ruling that the motions to tax costs by the City of Dunedin (the city) and Pinellas County (the county) were timely filed. We remand, however, to the trial court to strike certain travel expenses.
In June of 1989 the appellants filed a three count complaint against the city and the county alleging, inter alia, nuisance and inverse condemnation. Litigation continued between the twenty-seven plaintiffs and the city and county for more than four years until the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their suit against both defendants. The voluntary dismissal was entered on April 18, 1994. On June 6, 1994, the city filed a motion to tax costs pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(d). The county filed its motion to tax costs on July 14, 1994. The city and the county filed affidavits by counsel which included attachments with the items of costs delineated.
At the evidentiary hearing held on July 26, 1994, the city presented argument of counsel outlining the necessity for each cost item. Additionally, the city adjusted its total from $14,443.62 to $13,649.77 because the city was only responsible for one-half of the deposition costs for Dr. Seaburn. In addition to argument by counsel, the county presented the testimony of Milton Corson, an appraiser, and Sharon Keel, an administrative specialist with the Department of Risk Management. Ms. Keel processed the county’s invoices for payment and forwarded them to the finance unit of the department.
Appellants’ counsel did not present any witnesses. He argued the lack of timeliness of the two motions, and he objected to specif-ie items of eosts> deluding deposition costs, exPert ™tness eosts’ travel costs’ lonS distance calls’ 311(1 costs of Of the cost items challenged, we find merit only in appellants’ the travel costs were erroneously awarded.1
• [1,2] Both the city and the county included as cost items the travel expenses (airfare and hotel) to take the deposition of Dr. Sea-burn. The city also included airfare to Tallahassee to take the deposition of Eric Livingston. Generally, the Statewide Uniform Guidelines for Taxation of Costs do not allow for the taxation of costs for travel expenses incurred by attorneys. Mitchell v. Osceola Farms Co., 574 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); C.B.T. Realty v. St. Andrews, 508 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Long v. Martin, 410 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). Although there is no absolute bar to taxation of travel expenses, Madison v. Midland National Life Ins., 648 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), the city and county’s mere assertion that it would have cost more to bring the doctor to Pinellas County for his deposition does not affect this general rule. This court has allowed travel expenses of an attorney only if provided for by contract or statute. See C.B.T. Realty, 508 So. 2d at 411; Professional Computer Management, Inc. v. Tampa Wholesale Liquor Co., 374 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).
Since the costs awarded included attorney travel expenses, we remand to the trial court to strike those charges. We otherwise affirm the final order taxing costs.
PARKER, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND, J., concur. . Although counsel for appellants argues before this court that secretarial time was included in the expert’s billing, he did not make this argument at the hearing. Furthermore, the expert indicated there was no separate billing for secretarial time.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Amendments to Uniform Guidelines for Taxation of Costs, 915 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 2005)…nection with the taking of depositions out of the City or State” should not be taxed. Although case law cited by the Committee recognizes that there is no absolute bar to an award of costs for attorney travel expenses, see Barnes v. City of Dunedin, 666 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (noting that, although generally taxation of costs for attorney travel expenses incurred is not allowed under guidelines, such costs have been allowed if provided for by contract or statute); Beyel Bros., Inc. v. Lemenze, 720 So.…
-
Rodriguez v. David Campbell, M.D., 720 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…agree with the Rodriguezes that the trial court should have awarded only those costs recoverable under the Statewide Uniform Guidelines for Taxation of Costs and incurred during the investigation and evaluation period. See Barnes v. City of Dunedin, 666 So. 2d 574, 575 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). On remand, the trial court should strike the inappropriate costs. Finally, we agree with the Rodri-guezes that an award of attorney’s fees must be supported by expert evidence, including the testimony of the attorney who pe…
-
Helene K. Miller v. Hayman, 766 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…ravel expenses since the uniform guidelines went into effect. The second district acknowledged our decision in Madison, but noted that it does not allow travel expenses of counsel to be taxed as costs under the guidelines. Barnes v. City of Dunedin, 666 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). In the present case the trial court gave no explanation as to why it departed from the guidelines and assessed travel expenses. Nor have the appellees provided us with any reason to affirm other than the fact that we have affirm…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Madison v. Midland Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 648 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Mitchell v. Osceola Farms Co., 574 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- Prof'l Computer Mgmt., Inc. v. Tampa Wholesale Liquor Co., Inc., 374 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- C.B.T. Realty Corp. v. ST. Andrews Cove I Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 508 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Drake v. Knowlton LAB & Clinic, Inc., 410 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Long v. Mrs. Barbara M. Martin, 410 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)