BDO SEIDMAN, LLP, APPELLANT,
v.
BRITISH CAR AUCTIONS, INC., A CORPORATION AND ADT AUTOMOTIVE INC., A CORPORATION, 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.
Orders denying attorney's fees after final judgment are final orders, not non-final orders, and are appealable as such.
[1] An order denying attorney's fees entered after a final judgment is a final order.
[2] Post-decretal orders that are dispositive of a question complete the judicial labor on that portion of the cause after judgment and are treated as final.
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 intelligenceAppellant appealed an order denying attorney's fees, designating it as an appeal from a non-final order entered after a final order. The court conside…
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 Post-Judgment Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
Order Determining Order Denying Attorney’s Fees Entered After Final Jtidgment is Final Order
KLEIN, J.
Appellant has designated its appeal from an order denying attorney’s fees, entered after a final judgment, as an appeal of a non-final order entered after final order. Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(4). In the past we have treated these appeals as both final and non-final. Sanctuary of Boca, Inc. v. Careers USA, Inc., 691 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)(final); Reliable Reprographics Blueprint & Supply, Inc. v. Fla. Mango Office Park, Inc., 645 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)(non-final).
Whether an order is a non-final or final order can be important where a motion for rehearing has been filed, because our rules of civil procedure do not authorize motions for rehearing directed to non-final orders. If an order is non-final, a motion for rehearing does not toll the time for filing an appeal. Clearwater Fed. Sav. and Loan Ass’n v. Sampson, 336 So. 2d 78, 79-80 (Fla.1976). In Sampson, after a final judgment of foreclosure, the trial court entered an order authorizing one of the parties to withdraw funds in the registry of the court. The Florida Supreme Court concluded that such an order was a final order, not a non-final order entered after final judgment, explaining:
An interlocutory order entered after judgment, post decretal, order, is not to be confused with one entered during the pendency of the proceedings before final judgment. Post decretal orders are not true interlocutory orders, and perhaps the term ‘interlocutory’ is a misnomer. Where an order after judgment is dis-positive of any question, it becomes a final post decretal order. To the extent that it completes the judicial labor on that portion of the cause after judgment, it becomes final as to that portion and should be treated as a final judgment, and, therefore, a petition for rehearing could be properly directed to such a post decretal order which constitutes a final and distinct adjudication of rights which have not been adjudicated in the original final judgment, [citation omitted]
Under Sampson, post judgment orders denying attorney’s fees and judgments awarding attorney’s fees are final orders appealable under rule 9.030(b)(1)(A).1 We therefore redesignate this appeal as a final appeal.2
GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur. . A post-judgment order which determines only that a party is entitled to attorney's fees, but does not set the amount, is not appeal-able. The issue of entitlement can be raised on the appeal of the final judgment awarding fees. Winkelman v. Toll, 632 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).
. If the appellant, who assumed that this would proceed as a non-final appeal, finds it expeditious to proceed by the use of an appendix instead of a record, appellant is authorized to do so.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Yampol v. Turnberry Isle S. Condo Assoc., 250 So. 3d 835 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)
-
Kiefer v. Sunset Beach Invs., LLC, 207 So. 3d 1008 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)…tlement proposal was ambiguous and thus unenforceable. Kiefer timely invoked this court’s jurisdiction over'the order denying his motion for attorney’s fees, which we treat as a final appealable order. BDO Seidman, LLP v. British Car Auctions, Inc., 789 So. 2d 1019, 1020 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). After careful review, and with the benefit of a supreme' court decision released after the circuit court denied the motion, we reverse. The facts of the underlying action are described in more detail in our opinion issued…
-
Scott v. Women's Med. Grp., P.A., 837 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, 9.130(a)(4) (2002). Final attorney’s fees orders are appealable as separate final judgments. See Saye v. Pieschacon, 750 So. 2d 759, 761 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); BDO Seidman, L.L.P. v. British Car Auctions, Inc., 789 So. 2d 1019, 1019-20 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). However, the order being appealed is not a final attorney’s fee order, because it denies the appellants’ motion without prejudice to revisit the issue in the same suit when the Supreme Court resolves the conflict. See A…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Winkelman v. Toll, 632 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Clearwater Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Sampson, 336 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 1976)
- Reliable Reprographics Blueprint & Supply, Inc. v. Fla. Mango Off. Park, Inc., 645 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Sanctuary OF Boca, Inc. v. Careers USA, Inc., 691 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)