ENTERPRISING PROFESSIONAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, 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.
In this eminent domain appeal, the court held that post-judgment proceedings to recover expert witness fees constitute supplemental proceedings under Florida law, entitling the landowner to recover attorney's fees incurred in those proceedings. The court reversed the trial court's denial of the landowner's fee request.
Post-judgment proceedings related to the recovery of expert witness fees in eminent domain actions are supplemental proceedings under section 73.092(2), and a landowner is entitled to recover attorney's fees incurred in those proceedings.
[1] Posttrial proceedings in eminent domain actions to recover expert witness fees are considered supplemental proceedings for the purpose of awarding attorney's fees.
[2] Attorney's fees incurred in postjudgment adversarial proceedings concerning the recovery of expert witness costs in eminent domain actions are recoverable under section 7…
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“in normal usage, a supplemental proceeding occurs at the end of the proceeding, usually after final judgment has been entered”
Establishes the definition of supplemental proceedings used to determine whether EPIC's post-judgment fee proceedings qualify for fee recovery
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEPIC, a landowner in an eminent domain proceeding, obtained a final judgment and subsequently moved to recover attorney's fees and expert witness cost…
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 Supplemental Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
KELLY, Judge.
In this eminent domain proceeding, the landowner, Enterprising Professional Investment Corporation (EPIC), appeals an order denying its motion for an award of attorney’s fees under section 73.092(2), Florida Statutes (2001). The motion sought to recover fees EPIC had incurred during posttrial proceedings to recover the cost of its experts under section 73.091(1), Florida Statutes (2001). We conclude that those posttrial proceedings are supplemental proceedings under section 73.092(2) and that EPIC is entitled to recover the attorney’s fees it incurred in those proceedings.
After entry of the final judgment, EPIC moved to tax its attorney’s fees and costs under section 73.091(1). Among other things, EPIC sought to recover fees for its experts. The Department of Transportation (the Department) disputed the amount of fees EPIC sought for its experts and engaged EPIC in several adversarial proceedings related to those fees. At the conclusion of these proceedings, EPIC filed a second motion for attorney’s fees seeking to recover the fees it had incurred in the proceedings to recover the experts’ fees. EPIC argued that the award of fees was proper because these were supplementary proceedings under section 73.092(2). The trial court denied EPIC’s motion.
In State, Department of Transportation v. Smithbilt Industries, Inc., 715 So. 2d 963, 967 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), this court recognized that section 73.092(2) contains no definition of'“other supplemental proceedings,” but noted that “in normal usage, a supplemental proceeding occurs at the end of the proceeding, usually after final judgment has been entered.” In Amoco Oil Co. v. State, Department of Transportation, 765 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000), the court agreed with that reasoning and held that postjudgment hearings on the issue of costs in eminent domain actions were supplemental proceedings that could form the basis for assessment of attorney’s fees. In light of these precedents, we conclude that the trial court erred when it denied EPIC’s motion for attorney’s fees. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
WHATLEY and STRINGER, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Lockhart, 909 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…fees, expressly authorizing the award of such fees incurred in “supplemental proceedings.” Post-judgment cost proceedings constitute “supplemental proceedings” under this statute. See Enterprising Pro [*592] fessional Inv. Corp. v. Dep’t of Transp., 882 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). In seeking a reversal in this ease, DOT argues that, “[a]bsent an agreement subjecting the Lockharts to liability for the payment of their expert witness fees, the attorney’s fees incurred [by Lockharts’ counsel] in recovering t…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Amoco OIL Co. v. State, 765 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- Swartz v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Remembrances Vintage Recreations, Inc., 715 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- State v. Smithbilt Indus., Inc., 715 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)