P & R SMITH CORPORATION AND PERFECTO GERARDO SMITH, APPELLANTS,
v.
AITOR GOYARROLA AND ILEANA MIRABAL, 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.
The Third District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court's order striking defendants' motion for attorney's fees and costs, holding that Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525 requires only that the motion itself be filed within 30 days of judgment, not the supporting documentation.
Rule 1.525 is silent as to the timing of supporting documentation and requires only that the motion for costs and attorney's fees be served within 30 days after the filing of judgment. Therefore, the trial court erred in striking the motion based solely on the failure to timely file supporting documentation.
[1] A motion for attorney's fees and costs must be served within 30 days after the filing of the judgment.
[2] Rule 1.525, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, does not require supporting documentation for a motion for attorney's fees and costs to be filed within thirty days of the f…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Because the rule is silent as to the timing of the filing of the supporting documentation, the trial court erred by striking the defendants' motion based solely upon the failure to file supporting documentation within thirty days of the filing of the final judgment as this is not required by Rule 1.525.”
The core holding establishing that Rule 1.525 does not require supporting documentation to be filed within 30 days of judgment.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn an underlying personal injury action, the trial court entered final judgment on May 6, 2002. Defendants filed their motion for attorney's fees and …
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 Offer Of Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendants, P & R Smith Corporation and Perfecto Gerardo Smith, appeal from an adverse final order striking their claim for attorney’s fees and costs. We reverse.
In the underlying personal injury action, the trial court entered final judgment pursuant to a jury verdict on May 6, 2002. As required by Rule 1.525, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, on May 9, 2002, within thirty days of the filing of the final judgment, the defendants filed their motion to tax costs and attorney’s fees based on an offer of judgment. On October 11, 2002, the defendants filed affidavits itemizing the attorney’s fees and costs incurred in the defense of the action. The plaintiffs filed a motion to strike the defendants’ motion for attorney’s fees and costs contending that it was a “bare bones” motion and that the supporting affidavits had not been filed within thirty days of the filing of the final judgment as required by rule 1.525. The trial court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to strike stating that the defendants failed to timely file any supporting documentation. The defendants’ appeal follows.
The defendants contend that the trial court erred by striking their motion for attorney’s fees and costs where rule 1.525 only requires that the motion for attorney’s fees and costs be filed within thirty days of the filing of final judgment but is silent as to the timing of the filing of any supporting documentation.
Rule 1.525, titled “Motions for Costs and Attorney’s Fees,” provides as follows:
Any party seeking a judgment taxing costs, attorney’s fees or both shall serve a motion within 30 days after the filing of the judgment, including a judgment of dismissal, or the service of a notice of voluntary dismissal.
(emphasis added).
Because the rule is silent as to the timing of the filing of the supporting documentation, the trial court erred by striking the defendants’ motion based solely upon the failure to file supporting documentation within thirty days of the filing of the final judgment as this is not required by Rule 1.525. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Silver Springs Props., L.L.C. v. ERA Murray Realties, Inc., 874 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…the Second District suggest that the supporting proof must consist of an accompanying affidavit. Clearly, by their terms, neither rule 1.525, nor rule 1.100(b) requires supporting affidavits. More closely on point is P & R Smith Corp. v. Goyarrola, 864 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004), a case that was not available to the trial court. There, the defendants sought attorney’s fees and costs after the trial court entered a final judgment in their favor. Id. Pursuant to rule 1.525, on May 9, 2002, within thirty day…
-
The Andersen Firm, PC v. Brown (Fla. 4th DCA 2021)
-
McDANIEL v. Edmonds, 990 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…tions for attorney’s fees and costs be accompanied by affidavits setting forth the amount of fees and costs claimed. Silver Springs Props., L.L.C. v. ERA Murray Realties, Inc., 874 So. 2d 712, 714 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); P & R Smith Corp. v. Goyarrola, 864 So. 2d 584, 584 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). In the absence of such a requirement, there is no basis to deny a motion for attorney’s fees for failing to request a particular amount of fees or costs or identify the specific costs sought or legal services performed. We d…