JOSEPH ALTER, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA POOLS OF CENTRAL FLORIDA, INC., APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Appellate Attorney'S Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, J.
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING AND CLARIFICATION
The appellee, Florida Pools of Central Florida, Inc., prevailed in this appeal via a per curiam affirmance filed on November 23, 1999. Pending at that time was a motion filed by Florida Pools on August 23 seeking attorney fees on the basis of a contractual provision. Unfortunately, the motion was misfiled; although it appears in the clerk’s computer, the hard copy was not in the court file considered by the panel. As a result, the motion was not considered and disposed of at the time of the per curiam opinion. On December 10, 1999 the mandate issued. The term of court ended as of January 11, 2000, with no motion to withdraw the mandate having been filed in the interim.
On March 1, 2000, a duplicate of Florida Pool’s motion for attorney’s fees was filed and was denied by the panel on the basis that the term of court had expired in January. This was erroneous and accordingly we grant rehearing to correct the error. In Judges of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit v. Janovitz, 635 So. 2d 19 (Fla.1994), the supreme court stated that an appellate court has jurisdiction under such circumstances to enter an order assessing appellate attorney’s fees assuming that a timely motion had been filed seeking such fees.
REHEARING GRANTED; MOTION FOR APPELLATE ATTORNEY’S FEES GRANTED.
ANTOON, C.J., and DAUKSCH, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
R.C. v. Dep't OF Child. & Fam. Servs. & Guardian Ad Litem Program, 150 So. 3d 1277 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)…rather than any rule of law. . R.C. received no notice of the imposition being made upon her by the court and no opportunity for a reflective response by her counsel, the hallmark of notice and due process. See F.M. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 758 So. 2d 1262, 1264 (Fla. ,5th DCA 2000) (holding that the trial court erred in ordering a psychological evaluation under rule 8.250(b) without giving fair and advance notice). In addition, the order entered by the trial judge fails to include any of the specific…
-
O.I. v. Dep't OF Child. & Families, 789 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…Department does not dispute O.I.’s claim that he had no notice that the subject of testing would be discussed at the status/advisory hearing. The lack of sufficient notice requires that the order be quashed. See F.M. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 758 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). We do not reach the question of whether good cause was shown in this case. If testing is considered again at a properly noticed hearing, the determination of good cause will have to be made anew. GUNTHER, STONE and SHAHOOD,…
Authorities Cited
- The Judges OF the Eleventh Jud. Cir. v. Janovitz, 635 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 1994)