ANGELO GILLISLEE, APPELLANT,
v.
FPL, EBY CONSTRUCTION AND LIBERTY MUTUAL INS., 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.
Appellants Elmore and LS & F appeal a final judgment and cost judgment in favor of FPL, primarily concerning whether the filing date of a counterclaim needed to be submitted to a jury to overcome a statute of limitations defense.
The appellate court reviews the trial court's denial of FPL's motion for a directed verdict on the statute of limitations defense and the subsequent jury instructions and final judgment.
FPL filed a counterclaim against Elmore and LS & F for negligence related to dredging activities. Elmore and LS & F raised the statute of limitations …
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.
PER CURIAM.
Claimant seeks review of an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC), which dismissed his verified petition for attorney’s fees with prejudice, after Claimant failed to file the petition within the time-frame specified by the JCC. We reverse. As we recently held in Villazano v. Horace Bell Honey Co. & Ameritrust, 928 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006), “the JCC did not have authority, pursuant to either statute or rule, to set a time limitation for filing the verified petition for fees.” Although we recognize the JCC was merely attempting to govern his own docket, the Legislature has not yet given JCCs the authority to do so. Consequently, we are compelled to REVERSE and REMAND for proceedings consistent with Villazano.
ALLEN, LEWIS, and HAWKES, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Zaldivar v. Fla. Transp. 1982, Inc., 19 So. 3d 1093 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…procedure for resolving disputed attorney’s fees, the JCC found that Zaldivar was required to file his verified petition for attorney’s fees once a hearing on his lien was scheduled. [*1095] The JCC rejected Zaldivar’s reliance on Gillislee v. FPL, 929 So. 2d 716, 717 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006), distinguishing it on the basis that no attorney’s fee hearing was scheduled in Gillislee; rather, the JCC in Gillislee set an arbitrary time frame for filing of the verified petition. Analysis In Zaldivar v. Okeelanta Cor…
-
Zimmerman v. Judge of Comp. Claims Paul Terlizzese & the Off. of Judges of Comp. Claims, 947 So. 2d 1291 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…PER CURIAM. The Court has determined that this appeal is moot in light of the Court’s opinion in Gillislee v. FPL, Eby Constr. and Liberty Mutual Ins., 929 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). Accordingly, the appellees’ motion, filed on August 2, 2006, is hereby granted and the appeal is dismissed. In light of the dismissal, all pending motions are denied as moot. VAN NORTWICK, PADOVANO, and POLSTON, JJ., concur.…
-
Richard E. Zaldivar, P.A. v. Shaboun, 19 So. 3d 397 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…a. 1st DCA 2006), but the holding in that case does not compel a reversal here. We held in Villazano that a judge of compensation claims has no authority to set a thirty-day time limit to file a motion for attorney’s fees. See also Gillislee v. FPL, 929 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). The right to an attorney’s fee is a substantive matter that is controlled by statute, and the applicable statute does not limit the time for recovery. See § 440.34, Fla. Stat. (2002).2 In Villazano, the judge had no issue before…
Authorities Cited
- Pascual Villazano v. Horace Bell Honey Co. & Ameritrust, 928 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)