LAURA D'ANGELO, APPELLANT,
v.
GEORGE D'ANGELO, II, 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 held that Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.090(b)(2) can apply to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525, allowing for enlargements of time due to excusable neglect, even if the motion is filed one day late.
[1] A trial court may grant an enlargement of time to file a motion for attorney's fees under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.090(b)(2) upon a showing of excusable neglect.
[2] The thirty-day time limit for filing an attorney's fee motion under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525 can be extended by a stipulation between the parties.
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 intelligenceThe Wife filed her motion for attorney's fees one day late. The parties stipulated that the tardy filing was due to excusable neglect. The circuit cou…
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 Motion For Enlargement Of Time cases and more on FLexlaw
LaROSE, Judge.
Laura D’Angelo, the Wife, appeals the circuit court’s order denying her motion for enlargement of time and striking her motion for an award of attorney’s fees. We reverse.
The circuit court held that Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.090(b)(2), which allows enlargements of time due to excusable neglect, did not apply to the thirty-day requirement for filing an attorney’s fee motion under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525. Consequently, the circuit court concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to rule on the Wife’s rule 1.525 motion.
Subsequent to the circuit court’s order, this court recognized that rule 1.525 procedures can be overridden by a stipulation between the parties or by an order under rule 1.090(b) extending the time for filing a motion for attorney’s fees. See Lyn v. Lyn, 884 So. 2d 181, 185 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (citing Wentworth v. Johnson, 845 So. 2d 296, 299 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)). Here, the Wife’s rule 1.525 motion was filed one day late. The parties stipulated, however, that the tardy filing was due to excusable neglect. Accordingly, we reverse the circuit court’s order and remand with instructions to reconsider the Wife’s motion for extension of time and, if the extension is granted, to consider her motion for attorney’s fees.1
Reversed and remanded with directions.
WHATLEY and STRINGER, JJ., Concur. . We find no merit in the Husband’s contention that the timeliness of the Wife's motion is jurisdictional in a postdecretal proceeding. Lyn, 884 So. 2d at 185. We also recognize the recent adoption of Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.525, providing that rule 1.525 does not apply to family law cases. See Amendments to the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure (Rule 12.525), 897 So. 2d 467 (Fla.2005). However, the amendment does not apply retroactively. See Nicoletti v. Nicoletti, 902 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (citing Reddell v. Reddell, 900 So. 2d 670, 672 n. 1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Natkow v. Natkow, 696 So. 2d 315 (Fla.1997) (an amendment to a rule of procedure is prospective unless specifically provided otherwise)).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Welly Juhl v. Juhl, 328 So. 3d 1031 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021)…es requires us to reverse. 3 Even if rule 1.525 had applied to this case, the thirty-day time limit would not have been jurisdictional and could have been extended by application of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.090(b). See D'Angelo v. D'Angelo, 903 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) ("[R]ule 1.525 procedures can be overridden by . . . an order under rule 1.090(b) extending the time for filing a motion for attorney's fees."). And a court would abuse its discretion by denying a motion for fees filed late under…
-
Plichta v. Stephen D. Plichta, Jr., M.D., 921 So. 2d 851 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…this case. See Amendments to the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure (Rule 12.525), 897 So. 2d 467 (Fla.2005). But rule 12.525 was not adopted until March 3, 2005, and this court has held that it does not apply retroactively. D'Angelo v. D’Angelo, 903 So. 2d 378, 379 n. 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Nicoletti, 902 So. 2d at 216-17. Contra Smith v. Smith, 902 So. 2d 859, 864 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). Affirmed. FULMER, C.J., and LaROSE, J., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Wentworth v. Johnson, 845 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
- LYN v. LYN, 884 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Amendments TO THE Fla. Fam. LAW Rules OF Procedure (Rule 12.525), 897 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 2005)
- Nicoletti v. Nicoletti, 902 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Reddell v. Reddell, 900 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- Natkow v. Natkow, 696 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 1997)