MANUEL CHAMIZO, III, APPELLANT,
v.
SAMUEL FORMAN, 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.
Chamizo appeals from an order awarding attorney's fees to Forman, the prevailing party in a summary judgment. The court affirms, holding that the motion for fees was timely because the final judgment had already awarded fees to Forman and the trial court merely reserved jurisdiction to determine the amount.
The court holds that the motion for attorney's fees was timely because the final judgment had already awarded fees and costs to Forman and the trial court simply reserved jurisdiction to determine the amount. When fees have already been awarded and jurisdiction is reserved only to determine the amount, the 30-day filing requirement does not apply.
[1] A motion for attorney's fees is timely when the final judgment explicitly awards fees and costs and reserves jurisdiction solely to determine the amount.
[2] A trial court's reservation of jurisdiction to determine the amount of attorney's fees and costs does not extend the 30-day filing requirement of Rule 1.525 when the awar…
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 final judgment in this case had specifically awarded fees and costs to Forman. The court reserved its jurisdiction solely to allow it to determine the amount of said fees and costs.”
Explains why the 30-day timeliness requirement did not apply—the award was already made, and the court only needed to determine the amount.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court entered final summary judgment in favor of defendant Forman and determined that Forman was entitled to attorney's fees and costs as th…
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 Florida Rule Of Civil Procedure 1.525 cases and more on FLexlaw
GREEN, J.
Appellant/Plaintiff, Manuel Chamizo, appeals from an order awarding Appel-lee/Defendant, Samuel Forman, attorney’s fees as the prevailing party in the suit below. We affirm.
A final summary judgment in the action below was entered in Forman’s favor. The judgment also determined that For-man was entitled to attorney’s fees as the prevailing party:
The Court finds that Defendant, Samuel Forman, is the prevailing party and is entitled to an award for attorney’s fees and costs against Plaintiff.... SAMUEL FORMAN shall recover attorney’s fees and costs from Plaintiff, the amount to be determined by this Court at another hearing, (emphasis added)
We per curiam affirmed the final summary judgment in its entirety in an earlier appeal. Chamizo v. Forman, 910 So. 2d 272 (Fla. 3d DCA2005).
Forty-four days after the entry of the final judgment, Forman filed his motion for attorney’s fees and costs. Chamizo objected on the grounds that the motion was untimely pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525,1 which requires motions seeking fees and costs to be served within thirty days after the filing of the judgment. The trial court awarded For-man $14,995.40 in attorney’s fees and costs. Chamizo appeals.
We find no merit to Chamizo’s claim that the motion for fees was untimely. The final judgment in this case had specifically awarded fees and costs to Forman. The court reserved its jurisdiction solely to allow it to determine the amount of said fees and costs. Given the fact that fees and costs had already been awarded by the final judgment and affirmed by this court, the timeliness of Forman’s motion is a non-issue.2
Accordingly, we affirm.
. This rule provides:
Any party seeking a judgment taxing costs, attorney's fees, 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.
. Cf. Saia Motor Freight Line, Inc. v. Reid, 930 So. 2d 598 (Fla.2006)(court’s reservation of jurisdiction to determine amount of fees and costs where award of same has yet to be determined, does not extend 30-day filing requirement of Rule 1.525).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Amerus Life Ins. Co. v. Lait, 2 So. 3d 203 (Fla. 2009)…fth District Court of Appeal in AmerUs Life Insurance Co. v. Lait, 967 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007). The district court certified that its decision is in direct conflict with the decision of the Third District Court of Appeal in Chamizo v. Forman, 933 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). The conflict issue is whether Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525 applies when entitlement to attorneys’ fees and costs has already been established. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. For the following re…1 / 3
-
Ramle Int'l Corp. v. The Greens Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 32 So. 3d 647 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…ntitlement to attorneys’ fees and costs in its final judgment, but reserves jurisdiction only to determine the amount in attorneys’ fees and costs that is owed.” Amerus Life Ins. Co. v. Lait, 2 So. 3d 203, 207 (Fla.2009); see also Chamizo v. Forman, 933 So. 2d 1240, 1241 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). In addressing the purposes behind Rule 1.525’s adoption, our Supreme Court stated: [*648] Once the trial court determines that the prevailing party is entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs, the losing party is aware that it…
-
Tovar v. Pelayo Rogelio Silverio, 973 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Chamizo v. Forman, 933 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Byrne-Henry v. Hertz Corp., 927 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006).…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Saia Motor Freight Line, Inc. v. Reid, 930 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 2006)