PATRICIA SALEM, APPELLANT,
v.
BILLIE L. ABRAM, PHYLLIS S. ABRAM, AND HORACE MANN INSURANCE COMPANY, AN ILLINOIS 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.
Court affirmed denial of additur/new trial motion and dismissed as premature the attorney's fees issue because the trial court reserved jurisdiction to determine the fee amount, making the order nonfinal.
A trial court's determination that a party is entitled to attorney's fees based on an offer of judgment is nonfinal and nonappealable when the court reserves jurisdiction to determine the amount of fees.
[1] A trial court's order determining entitlement to attorney's fees but reserving jurisdiction to determine the fee amount is nonfinal and nonappealable.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePatricia Salem appealed a jury trial judgment in an automobile accident case, challenging the denial of her motion for additur or new trial and the aw…
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 Additur cases and more on FLexlaw
SILBERMAN, Judge.
Patricia Salem appeals the final judgment that was entered following a jury trial on her claim arising from an automobile accident. She argues that the trial court erred by denying her motion for additur or new trial and by determining that Billie and Phyllis Abram are entitled to recover attorney’s fees pursuant to their proposal for settlement (which both the parties and the trial court refer to as an offer of judgment) to Ms. Salem.
We affirm the denial of the. motion for additur or new trial without comment. As to the issue concerning attorney’s fees, the trial court found that “the offer of judgment was proper” and that the Abrams were entitled to attorney’s fees based on that offer; however, the trial court stated, “The Court reserves jurisdiction to determine that amount.” Because the trial court’s order only determined the entitlement to attorney’s fees but did not set the amount of the fees, it is a nonfinal and nonappealable order. See Argento v. Argento, 842 So. 2d 182, 183-84 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Doig v. Doig, 787 So. 2d 100, 103 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). We therefore dismiss the attorney’s fee issue without prejudice.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part.
SALCINES, J., and DANAHY, PAUL W., Senior Judge, Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Humphrey Igberaese v. Vill. of Stoneybrook, 239 So. 3d 1284 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)
Authorities Cited
- Doig v. Richelle Doig, 787 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Argento v. Argento, 842 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)