GUY B. BAILEY, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
CHARLOTTE LEATHERMAN, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT

Fla. 3d DCA | 1996-01-31
No. 95-1241
Before BARKDULL, NESBITT and GODERICH, JJ.
668 So. 2d 232 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1996) Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case

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.


Holding

The court held that post-judgment interest on an award of attorney's fees and costs accrues from the date entitlement is determined, not when the amount is fixed.


Headnotes

[1] Post-judgment interest on an award of attorney's fees and costs accrues from the date the trial court finds entitlement to the award, even if the amount is determined lat…

[2] A prevailing party should not be penalized for a non-prevailing party's decision to contest entitlement to attorney's fees.

Previewing 2 of 3 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

Facts & Procedural History

The trial court awarded attorney's fees and costs to the plaintiff. The defendant appealed, and the plaintiff cross-appealed regarding the calculation…

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.

Guy B. Bailey, the defendant below, appeals and Charlotte Leatherman, the plaintiff below, cross-appeals from a “Final Judgment Awarding Plaintiffs Attorney’s Fees and Costs.” We affirm, in part, and reverse and remand, in part.

Although we find that the points raised by the defendant’s appeal do not merit discussion, we do address the issue raised by the plaintiff on cross-appeal. The plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in calculating the amount of interest on the award of attorney’s fees and costs. We agree.

In Fischbach & Moore, Inc. v. McBro, a Division of McCarthy Brothers Co., 619 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), this court held that post-judgment interest on an award of attorney’s fees and costs starts to accrue from the date that the trial court finds that the party was entitled to such an award, even though the amount was not determined until a later date. This court reasoned that a “prevailing party should not be penalized when a non-prevailing party decides to contest entitlement to attorney’s fees.” Fischbach, 619 So. 2d at 325.

In the instant case, the post-judgment interest started to accrue on September 22, 1993, the date that the trial court determined that the plaintiff was entitled to an award of attorney’s fees and costs, even though the actual amount to be awarded was not determined until a later date. As in Fischbach, the plaintiff should not be penalized because the defendant appealed the trial court’s order finding that she was entitled to an award of attorney’s fees and costs. After a careful review of the order under appeal, it is apparent that the trial court has not properly calculated the post-judgment interest. Accordingly, this cause is reversed and remanded for a recalculation of post-judgment interest in accordance with the applicable interest rates as provided by section 55.03, Florida Statutes (Supp.1994).

Affirmed, in part, reversed, in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Lipsig v. Zahid A. Ramlawi, 760 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
    …terest as to verdicts 9,16-22, nunc pro tunc from the date of the jury’s verdict and post-judgment interest on the accounting award nunc pro tunc from the date of the court’s order on the accounting phase of the trial. See also Bailey v. Leatherman, 668 So. 2d 232, 233 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (post-judgment interest award started to accrue on date that trial court determined that plaintiff was entitled to fees and costs, even if actual amount was not determined until later; plaintiff was not to be penalized becaus…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw