JOHN H. BRAXTON, APPELLANT,
v.
DEBBIE WILCOX MORRIS, AS HOLMES COUNTY SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS, AND THE HONORABLE ROBERT EARL BROWN, AS CHAIRMAN OF HOLMES COUNTY ELECTION CANVASSING BOARD AND COUNTY COURT JUDGE, 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.
Braxton appeals the denial of attorney's fees and costs, arguing that a trial court's reservation of jurisdiction to address fees extended the 30-day filing deadline under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525. The First District Court of Appeal holds that a reservation of jurisdiction does not automatically extend the deadline and affirms the denial of fees.
A reservation of jurisdiction in a final judgment does not act as an automatic extension of the 30-day filing period under rule 1.525. A party seeking fees or costs must comply with the thirty-day requirement unless the movant files a motion pursuant to rule 1.090(b) to seek an enlargement of time either before or after the 30 days has run.
[1] A reservation of jurisdiction in a final judgment does not automatically extend the thirty-day period for filing a motion for attorney's fees and costs under Rule 1.525,…
[2] Compliance with the thirty-day filing requirement of Rule 1.525, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, is mandatory unless an enlargement of time is sought by motion under Ru…
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“the reservation of jurisdiction does not act as an automatic extension of time”
States the holding that reserving jurisdiction does not extend the rule 1.525 deadline
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBraxton filed an action against Debbie Wilcox Morris (Holmes County Supervisor of Elections) and Robert Earl Brown (Chairman of the Holmes County Elec…
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.
John H. Braxton appeals an order denying attorney’s fees and costs on the ground that, contrary to rule 1.525, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Braxton failed to file his motion seeking fees and costs within thirty days of the date of the entry of the final judgment in Braxton’s action against Debbie Wilcox Morris, as Holmes County Supervisor of Elections, and Robert Earl Brown, as chairman of the Holmes County Election Canvassing Board, appellees. In the final judgment, the trial court had reserved jurisdiction to address the entitlement to attorney’s fees. The issue presented here is whether such reservation of jurisdiction works to extend the thirty-day period provided by rule 1.525. We hold that the reservation of jurisdiction does not act as an automatic extension of time and affirm.
In Smith v. Smith, 902 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005), this court has recently explained the inter-district conflict on the issue before us:
The Third and Fourth Districts have held that the trial court may extend rule 1.525’s time period for filing an attorney’s-fee motion if there is a reservation of jurisdiction in the final judgment. See Bray v. Grabowski, 905 So. 2d 153, 2004 WL 3001070 (Fla. 3d DCA Dec. 29, 2004); Fisher v. John Carter & Assocs., Inc., 864 So. 2d 493, 496 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Saia Motor Freight Line, Inc. v. Reid, 888 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). However, the Second and Fifth Districts have rejected this position, and have held that a reservation of jurisdiction cannot serve to extend the 30-day period established in rule 1.525. See Mook [v. Mook], 873 So. 2d at 364[ (Fla. 2nd DCA 2004) ]; Gulf Landings Ass’n, Inc. v. Hershberger, 845 So. 2d 344, 345-46 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Wentworth v. Johnson, 845 So. 2d 296, 299 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). Although this court has agreed with the Second and Fifth Districts in deciding that the requirements of rule 1.525 are mandatory, see Atkins v. Eris, 873 So. 2d 1264, 1266 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004), and Ulico Cas. Co. v. Roger Kennedy Construction, Inc., 821 So. 2d 452, 453 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002), it also holds [in Dep’t of Transp. v. Southtrust Bank, 886 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) ] that rule 1.525 must be considered in conjunction with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.090(b)....
Id. at 862. Thus, a party seeking fees or costs must coinply with the thirty-day filing requirement of rule 1.525 “unless, by motion filed pursuant to rule 1.090(b) either before or after the 30 days has run, the movant seeks an enlargement of time.” Southtrust, 886 So. 2d at 395.
We recognize that applying the thirty-day requirement under rule 1.525 in such a strict manner may seem harsh or inequitable where the trial court has previously reserved jurisdiction. Nevertheless, we find persuasive Judge Altenbernd’s reasoning:
Indeed, if a provision in a final judgment reserving jurisdiction .to determine the issue of attorneys’ fees were to act as an automatic but indefinite extension of time for filing a written motion, courts would again be faced with determining on a case-by-case basis what length of time thereafter was reasonable for filing a motion for fees, or whether motions for fees filed long after entry of judgment were unreasonably delayed and should be denied. This would undermine the intent of rule 1.525.
Lyn v. Lyn, 884 So. 2d 181, 185 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (citations omitted).
Accordingly, we affirm the order denying fees and costs. We certify conflict with Fisher v. John Carter & Assocs., 864 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).
WOLF, C.J. and BROWNING, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hart v. City OF Groveland, 919 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…or both shall serve a motion within 30 days after filing of the judgment, including a judgment of dismissal, or the service of a notice of voluntary dismissal. The district courts have taken a strict view of this rule. See, e.g., Braxton v. Morris, 914 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); Lyn v. Lyn, 884 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). Reservation in a judgment of jurisdiction to award fees does not override the 30-day requirement of the Rule. Mook v. Mook, 873 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). The mere request for f…
-
Certified Marine Expeditions v. Freeport Shipbuilding, Inc., 914 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…he order confirming the arbitration award, yet Appellant argues that its motion was not untimely because, in the order, the trial court reserved jurisdiction to award fees and costs. Recently, this court addressed this argument in Braxton v. Morris, 914 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). In Braxton, we concluded that a reservation of jurisdiction does not extend the time to seek attorneys’ fees, saying “a party seeking fees or costs must comply with the thirty-day filing [sic] requirement of rule 1.525 ‘unless,…
Authorities Cited (11 total)
- Fisher v. John Carter & Assocs., Inc., 864 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
- Wentworth v. Johnson, 845 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
- 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)
- Ulico Cas. Co. v. Roger Kennedy Constr., Inc., 821 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- State v. Southtrust Bank, 886 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
- Smith v. Smith, 902 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)
- Sullivan v. State, 902 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)
- Atkins v. Eris, 873 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)