MARK OSTERBACK, APPELLANT,
v.
L.E. TURNER, JIM SUTHERLAND, AND MICHAEL W. MOORE, 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.
A party can be awarded appellate costs even if the appellate court did not reach the merits of the underlying claim, as long as the party prevailed on a significant issue in the appeal.
Appellant sought to tax appellate costs after a prior appeal where the appellate court did not address the merits of his declaratory and mandamus reli…
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 Taxation Of Appellate Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1238] PER CURIAM.
On a motion for review pursuant to rule 9.400(c), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, Mark Osterback seeks review of an order denying his motion to tax appellate costs. By this motion, pursuant to rule 9.400(a), appellant sought to tax the costs incurred in an appeal of an order denying declaratory and mandamus relief. Osterback v. Turner, 837 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). The trial court denied the motion to tax appellate costs based on a finding that appellant was not the prevailing party on appeal inasmuch as this court “did not address the actual merits” of his complaint for declaratory and mandamus relief.
As we have previously explained, an award of costs under rule 9.400(a) does not depend on a party’s ultimate success on the merits of a claim, Newell v. Moore, 819 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002), and the merits of a claim need not be considered by the appellate court for a party to be eligible for an award of appellate costs, see Smith v. Department of Corrections, 797 So. 2d 1272 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). It is sufficient if the party prevails “on the significant issue in the appeal.” Newell, 819 So. 2d at 847.
Here, the appellant prevailed on the sig-nificant issue raised in his prior appeal to this court. Accordingly, the order denying appellant’s motion to tax appellate costs is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for taxation of appellate costs in favor of appellant.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
BOOTH, BENTON and VAN NORTWICK, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Paola Perez v. Derik FAY, 198 So. 3d 681 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)…appeal — it is whether she prevailed on the “significant issues.” See, e.g., Lucas v. Barnett Bank of Lee Cty., 732 So. 2d 405, 407 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Polackwich, 705 So. 2d 23, 25 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Osterback v. Turner, 855 So. 2d 1237, 1238 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). Costs are properly awarded to the party who prevailed on the “significant issues” in the appeal, even if the party did not obtain all of the relief sought. See Lucas, 732 So. 2d at 407 (noting that while the decision on ap…
-
Daniels v. Sorriso Dental Studio, LLC, 178 So. 3d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)…e prevailed on the “significant issues.” See, e.g., Dahly, 845 So. 2d at 351; Lucas v. Barnett Bank of Lee Cty., 732 So. 2d 405, 407 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Polackwich, 705 So. 2d 23, 25 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Osterback v. Turner, 855 So. 2d 1237, 1238 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). Here, the significant issue in the petition was whether the circuit court departed [*114] from the essential requirements of the law by affirming the dismissal of Daniels’ garnishment action in light of the judgment debtor…
Authorities Cited
- Osterback v. L.E. Turner, 837 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)
- Smith v. Fla. Dep't OF Corr., 797 So. 2d 1272 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Thomas v. State, 819 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- Newell v. Moore, 819 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)