LEROY THOMAS, APPELLANT,
v.
JUANZA PERKINS AND JOHN R. PERKINS, 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 court affirmed the award of attorney's fees and costs, finding that res judicata barred challenges to entitlement and that the absence of a transcript precluded review of the award's excessiveness.
[1] The doctrine of res judicata precludes a party from raising issues regarding entitlement to fees and costs that were or should have been raised in a prior appeal.
[2] A trial court's award of attorney's fees and costs is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
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 intelligenceAppellant Leroy Thomas appealed a judgment awarding attorney's fees and costs to appellees. This was the third appeal in the case, following prior dec…
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 Appellate Record cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is the third appeal of this cause before this court. In the first appeal, Wilson v. Satellite Mike, Inc., 691 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 3d DCA), review dismissed, 697 So. 2d 513 (Fla.1997), we affirmed the lower court’s involuntary dismissal of the appellant’s amended complaint with prejudice. In the second appeal, Perkins v. Wilson, 697 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (“Wilson II”), we reversed the lower court’s denial of attorney’s fees and costs to appellees pursuant to their offer made in accordance with section 768.79, Florida Statutes (1995), and remanded for a determination of a reasonable amount. Appellant Leroy Thomas now appeals the judgment awarding attorney’s fees and costs.
On this appeal, Thomas first attempts to challenge, on various grounds, the propriety of the appellees’ entitlement to fees and costs pursuant to section 768.79 on various grounds. Under the doctrine of res judicata, our decision in Wilson II, however, forecloses all of such arguments. This doctrine precludes Thomas from raising any issues which were or should have been raised in the Wilson II appeal regarding the appellees’ entitlement to fees and costs. See Walker v. Walker, 566 So. 2d 1350, 1352 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Braden v. Braden, 436 So. 2d 914, 915 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).
Alternatively, Thomas argues that the fees and costs awarded by the trial court were excessive. Our standard of review on this issue is abuse of discretion. See Patterson v. Cuervo, 683 So. 2d 205, 206 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Elliot v. Pallotti, 654 So. 2d 1300, 1302 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). We note, however, that the record before us does not contain a transcript of the hearing that was held to determine the amount of fees and costs. In the absence of a record of the evidence considered by the trial court in making this award, we cannot find that the trial court abused its discretion and must therefore affirm. See Girtman v. Girtman, 693 So. 2d 631, 632 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Novom v. Novom, 513 So. 2d 789, 790 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
Fla. Dep't OF Transp. v. Juliano, 801 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 2001)…jecting this argument, the Third District concluded that the doctrine of res judicata precluded the DOT from raising or reraising any aspect of its workers’ compensation defense on remand after the first appeal of this cause. See Thomas v. Perkins, 723 So. 2d 293, 294 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (under the doctrine of res judicata, appellant is precluded from raising any issues [*105] which were or should have been raised on first appeal). Id. This appeal follows. THE DOCTRINES OF RES JUDICATA AND THE LAW OF THE CA…
-
State v. Nassau P'rs, Ltd., 878 So. 2d 1286 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…disagree. Initially, we observe that the issue of an owner’s entitlement to fees in an eminent domain proceeding is reviewed by a de novo standard. See Univ. of Fla., Bd. of Trustees v. Sanal, 837 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Thomas v. Perkins, 723 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). Attorney’s fees incurred in litigating entitlement to recover costs are authorized by section 73.092(2),1 because a post-judgment costs hearing is included within “other supplemental proceedings” contemplated by that provision. A…
-
Universal Beverages Holdings, Inc. v. Merkin, 902 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…305 So. 2d 248, 248-49 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Hill v. Coplan Pipe & Supply Co., 296 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). The standard of review for an award of attorney’s fees, whether based on contract or statute, is abuse of discretion. Thomas v. Perkins, 723 So. 2d 293, 294 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). In the instant case, as in Solar Research, Universal and Merkin agreed that they had contracted for certain legal services, but disagreed as to the terms of the contract. The trial court, sitting as the finder of fact, was…
Previewing 3 of 17 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Novom v. Novom, 513 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Collazo v. Hupert, 693 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- Patterson v. Cuervo, 683 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- Girtman v. Iva Hauck Girtman, 693 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Lifestyle Builders OF Boca, Inc. v. Turesky, 654 So. 2d 1300 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Braden v. Braden, 436 So. 2d 914 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Walker v. Walker, 566 So. 2d 1350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Gerret Van S. Copeland, Jr. v. Stockenstroom, 691 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Juanza Perkins and John Perkins v. Georgette Wilson and Leroy Lower Thomas, 697 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)