RONALD E. CLAMPITT, APPELLANT,
v.
JARRELL BRITTS, 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.
The court affirmed the trial court's order striking Ronald Clampitt's motion for attorney's fees and costs because it was served more than thirty days after judgment was filed, violating Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525. The court rejected arguments that the time period was tolled by a motion for rehearing or extended by the judgment's reservation of jurisdiction to address attorney's fees.
The court held that Clampitt's motion for attorney's fees was untimely under rule 1.525 because it was not served within thirty days of the judgment's filing. The time for filing the motion was not tolled by the motion for rehearing, nor was it extended by the judgment's reservation of jurisdiction to address attorney's fees.
[1] A motion for attorney's fees and costs must be served within thirty days after the filing of the judgment to comply with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525.
[2] A motion for rehearing does not toll the time for serving a motion for attorney's fees and costs under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525.
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“We affirm the order striking Ronald E. Clampitt's motion for attorney's fees and costs because, contrary to the requirements of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525, it was served more than thirty days after the judgment was filed.”
States the holding and basis for affirmance—violation of the thirty-day service requirement.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRonald Clampitt filed a motion for attorney's fees and costs against Jarrell Britts, but the motion was served more than thirty days after the judgmen…
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 Reservation Of Jurisdiction For Attorney'S Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
NORTHCUTT, Judge.
We affirm the order striking Ronald E. Clampitt’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs because, contrary to the requirements of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525, it was served more than thirty days after the judgment was filed. See Gulf Landings Ass’n v. Hershberger, 845 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). We reject Clam-pitt’s argument that the time for filing the motion was tolled by his motion for rehearing. See Manimal Land Co. v. Randall E. Stofft Architects, P.A., 889 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (holding that attorney’s fee motion was untimely under rule 1.525 when it was not served within thirty days of the filing of the judgment and rejecting argument that time for fee motion ran from denial of motion for rehearing when judgment became final); cf. Lyn v. Lyn, 884 So. 2d 181, 184 n. 3 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (“We note that rule 1.525 refers to a ‘judgment’ and not a ‘final judgment’ or a ‘final order.’ It is not entirely clear that these terms are interchangeable in the context of the rule.”).
We have previously rejected the argument that the time for filing the motion was extended by the judgment’s reservation of jurisdiction to address attorney’s fees. See Gulf Landings Ass’n, 845 So. 2d at 346. On this point, we certify conflict with Fisher v. John Carter & Associates, Inc., 864 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), and Saia Motor Freight Line, Inc. v. Reid, 888 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). Furthermore, we see no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial of Clampitt’s motion to extend the time based on excusable neglect. See Lyn, 884 So. 2d 181.
Affirmed; conflict certified.
KELLY and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Stylianoudakis, 946 So. 2d 647 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…oted that conflict regarding the time requirement for serving a motion for attorney’s fees and costs had been certified to the Florida Supreme Court in Saia Motor Freight Line, Inc. v. Reid, 888 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004), and Clampitt v. Britts, 897 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005), review denied, SC05-705, 946 So. 2d 1069 [*649] (Fla. Dec. 7, 2006). State Farm appealed the cost award. After the trial court entered the cost award to plaintiffs, the supreme court addressed the conflict among the district cou…
-
Ponce v. Minda, 923 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…ded supplemental final judgment. To afford Ponce relief under this theory we would first have to conclude that the parties’ motions for reconsideration tolled the time for Ponce to file her motion for attorney’s fees. However, in Clampitt v. Britts, 897 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005), this court rejected the contention that the filing of a motion for rehearing tolls the time to file a motion for attorney’s fees under rule 1.525. In light of this court’s steadfast refusal to recognize any exceptions to the proc…
-
Carlton Jackson v. Anthony, 39 So. 3d 1285 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…ithin 30 days of the filing of the judgment with the clerk. A motion for rehearing does not toll the 30-day time limit in rule 1.525. See Manimal Land Co. v. Randall E. Stofft Architects, P.A., 889 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Clampitt v. Britts, 897 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). Likewise, a post-trial Motion to Admit and Consider Newly Discovered Evidence, does not toll the 30-day time limit. The filing of the judgment with the clerk signals that the judicial labor has come to an end. Appellant’s prejud…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fisher v. John Carter & Assocs., Inc., 864 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
- Gulf Landings Ass'n, Inc. v. Hershberger, 845 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- LYN v. LYN, 884 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Saia Motor Freight Line, Inc. v. Reid, 888 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)
- Manimal Land Co. v. Randall E. Stofft Architects, P.A., 889 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)