KENDALL COUNTRY ESTATE, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
DANIEL J. PIERSON, ET AL., APPELLEES

Fla. 3d DCA | 2001-01-10
No. 3D00-479
Before JORGENSON, GERSTEN, and FLETCHER, JJ.
826 So. 2d 1002 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2001) Positive Treatment
Cited by 3 cases

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.

Synopsis

Kendall Country Estate appeals the trial court's order striking its motion for attorney's fees as untimely. The court held that under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442(g), a motion for attorney's fees must be filed within 30 days of the verdict, not the final judgment, and the defendant failed to show excusable neglect for missing this deadline.


Holding

The motion for attorney's fees was properly struck as untimely because it was filed more than 30 days after the verdict; the court did not reserve jurisdiction to award fees within 30 days of the verdict; and Kendall Country failed to demonstrate excusable neglect for its failure to file the motion within the 30-day deadline.


Headnotes

[1] A motion for attorney's fees under section 768.79, Florida Statutes, must be filed within thirty days of the verdict, not the date of the final judgment.

[2] A trial court's delay in entering a final judgment that reserves jurisdiction for attorney's fees does not constitute excusable neglect for a party's failure to timely fi…

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

Key Quotes

“the timing of a motion [for attorney's fees and costs] is triggered by the date of the verdict, not the date of the judgment.”

Establishes the controlling rule that the 30-day deadline for filing a fees motion runs from the verdict date, not from entry of final judgment.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

In December 1998, Kendall Country served an offer of judgment on the plaintiffs. A jury rendered a defense verdict on November 5, 1999. Kendall Countr…

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.

Kendall Country Estate, Inc., (Kendall Country) the defendant below, appeals from the trial court’s Order Granting the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Defendant’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Denying the Defendant’s Motion for Entry of Findings of Fact.

In December 1998, Kendall Country served an offer of judgment on the plaintiffs pursuant to section 768.79, Florida Statutes (1997).

On November 5, 1999, a jury rendered a defense verdict.

On November 15, 1999, plaintiffs moved for a new trial and on November 24, Kendall Country filed a motion for final judgment and to reserve jurisdiction on fees and costs. The court reserved its ruling on both motions at the December 3, 1999 hearing. On December, 7, 1999, Kendall Country received a copy of the court’s December 3, 1999 order denying the plaintiffs’ motion for new trial. The court had not ruled on Kendall Country’s motion for final judgment. Defense counsel wrote the court requesting judgment be entered in accordance with the previously filed motion for final judgment and reservation of jurisdiction to award attorney’s fees.

On December 10, 1999, thirty-five days after the verdict was rendered, the court signed the final judgment which had been proposed by Kendall Country on November 24, 1999, and which “reserve[d] jurisdiction for purposes of taxing costs and fees, if any, upon appropriate motion.” On December 15, 1999, Kendall Country served its motion for attorney’s fees on the plaintiffs. .

On January 6, 2000, the plaintiffs filed their motion to strike Kendall Country’s motion for fees as untimely, as it was filed more than thirty days after the verdict. Kendall Country filed a Motion for Entry of Findings of Fact, which the court treated as a Motion.to Establish Excusable Neglect. The .court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to strike and denied Kendall Country’s motion, ruling that “the timing of a motion [for attorney’s fees and costs] is triggered by the date of the verdict, not the date of the judgment.” The court found that its delay in entering the final judgment with reservation of jurisdiction to award fees does not constitute excusable neglect on the part of Kendall Country.

We affirm.

The court properly struck the motion for fees because Kendall Country failed to file it within thirty days of the verdict; the court did not reserve jurisdiction to award fees within thirty days of the verdict; and Kendall Country failed to show excusable neglect. See Fla. Rule Civ. P. 1.442(g); see also Gulliver Academy, Inc. v. Bodek, 694 So. 2d 675, 677 (Fla.1997); Barrero v. Ocean Bank, 729 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Spencer v. Barrow, 752 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).

As the Florida Supreme Court stated in Gulliver Academy, “there could be a reservation of jurisdiction in a final judgment on a jury verdict which would not be timely if the final judgment was not entered within thirty days of the verdict. In that situation, the party would have to show excusable neglect.” 694 So. 2d at 677.

We agree with the trial court that its delay in entering the final judgment with a reservation of jurisdiction to award fees does not constitute excusable neglect under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.090(b)(2). As the trial court ruled:

The Defendant was obligated to file its motion within 30 days of the verdict. Nothing prevented the Defendant from doing this: There is no rule or case law which excuses the Defendant’s obligation simply because the Court has the right to reserve jurisdiction to award fees if it acts within the thirty (30) days of the verdict. In other words, the Defendant had the ability to comply with the law and simply failed to do so.

Affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Carter v. Lake Cnty., 840 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
    …-Dorminey v. Lucy Ho’s Rest., 815 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Steinhardt v. Intercondominium Group, Inc., 771 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Spencer v. Barrow, 752 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); see also Kendall Country Estate, Inc. v. Pierson, 826 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Hernandez v. Page, 580 So. 2d 793 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). We find support for our decision in the opinions rendered by the federal courts interpreting Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 6(b) and 60(b). We find these opinions persuasiv…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw