ULICO CASUALTY COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
ROGER KENNEDY CONSTRUCTION, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE
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.
Ulico Casualty Company appeals the denial of its post-judgment motion for attorney's fees, which the trial court found untimely under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525 because it was filed 47 days after final judgment rather than within the required 30 days. The court affirms, holding that the mandatory language of Rule 1.525 requires strict compliance with the 30-day deadline.
The court affirms that Ulico's motion for attorney's fees was untimely under Rule 1.525. The rule's mandatory language ('shall') and the Committee Notes establishing a strict time requirement for serving such motions preclude the trial court from exercising discretion to accept late-filed motions for attorney's fees.
[1] A motion for attorney's fees must be served within 30 days after the filing of the judgment.
[2] The word "shall" in a rule of civil procedure is generally interpreted as mandatory.
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“Any party seeking a judgment taxing costs, attorneys' fees, or both shall serve a motion within 30 days after filing of the judgment.”
The mandatory text of Rule 1.525 establishing the strict 30-day deadline for filing motions for attorney's fees.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court entered final judgment in favor of Ulico and subcontractor Eubanks Excavating Company against general contractor Roger Kennedy Constru…
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.
PER CURIAM.
Ulico Casualty Company appeals from an order denying its post-judgment motion for attorney’s fees on the basis that it was untimely under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525, because it was filed more than 30 days after the final judgment was entered in construction litigation against appellee, Roger Kennedy Construction, Inc. We affirm on all issues and address only that pertaining to the application of rule 1.525.
The trial court entered a final judgment in favor of Ulico and the subcontractor under its bond, Eubanks Excavating Company, against the general contractor, Robert Kennedy Construction, on January 17, 2001. Ulico filed its motion for attorney’s fees 47 days later on March 6, 2001. In finding Ulico’s motion to be untimely, the trial court relied on rule 1.525, which became effective on January 1, 2001. See Amendments to Fla. Rules of Civil Procedure, 773 So. 2d 1098, 1099 (Fla.2000). That rule provides: “Any party seeking a judgment taxing costs, attorneys’ fees, or both shall serve a motion within 30 days after filing of the judgment[.]”
In support of its argument for reversal, Ulico relies upon cases such as United States Fidelity & Guaranty v. Martin County, 669 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), which held that a motion for attorney’s fees was not untimely, even though it was filed eight days after the appellate court had affirmed the trial court’s order granting summary judgment. That case, however, was decided prior to the January 1, 2001, adoption of rule 1.525, when case law permitted motions for attorney’s fees to be filed within a “reasonable time” after entry of the final judgment. Rule 1.525, however, specifically states that such motions “shall” be served within 30 days after filing of the judgment.
We cannot say that the trial court erred in concluding that Ulico’s motion was untimely under rule 1.525, because the rule employs the word “shall,” which is generally interpreted to be mandatory in its application, and because the Committee Notes appended to the rule-explain that the rule was “intended to establish a time requirement to serve motions for costs and attorneys’ fees.”
AFFIRMED.
ALLEN, C.J., ERVIN and KAHN, JJ, CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Diaz v. Bowen, 832 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…cluding a judgment of dismissal, or the service of a notice of voluntary dismissal. Id. at 1119-20. Ms. Bowen’s motion was untimely under this rule. The new rule applied to this action pending in 2001. Ulico Cas. Co. v. Roger Kennedy Constr., Inc., 821 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (holding trial court properly denied untimely motion under rule 1.525 in ease commenced prior to January 1, 2001). Ms. Bowen did not file any motion seeking an extension of time to file this postjudgment motion for attorneys’ fee…1 / 2
-
Carter v. Lake Cnty., 840 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…1 — the effective date of rule 1.525 — the courts generally held that a party could file and serve a motion for fees and costs within a reasonable time after the date the final judgment was entered. See Ulico Cas. Co. v. Roger Kennedy Constr., Inc., 821 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). The purpose of rule 1.525 is to eliminate the reasonable time rule and establish a time requirement to serve motions for costs and attorney’s fees. Id. Carter seeks refuge from this time requirement in the provisions of rule 1.0…
-
State v. Southtrust Bank, 886 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…intended to supersede previous case law holding that a motion for fees or costs need only be made within a reasonable time after entry of judgment, and to replace it with a bright-line rule. See, e.g., Ulico Cas. Co. v. Roger Kennedy Constr., Inc., 821 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Gulf Landings Ass’n, Inc. v. Hershberger, 845 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Carter v. Lake County, 840 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). Appellant would have us end our inquiry at this point, and reverse. However, rule 1.090(b)…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 773 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 2000)
- United States Fid. & Guar. v. Martin Cnty., 669 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)