PAUL E. BATES, D/B/A COCONUT COVE RESORT, AND COCONUT COVE RESORT AND MARINA, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
ISLAMORADA, VILLAGE OF ISLANDS, 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 appellants Bates and Coconut Cove Resort appealed two trial court orders awarding sanctions and attorney's fees to the Village of Islamorada. On rehearing, the Third District Court of Appeal clarified that attorney's fees awarded as sanctions for non-compliance with court orders—rather than fees based on statute—may properly include time spent litigating the amount of fees itself.
Attorney's fees awarded as sanctions for non-compliance with trial court orders may properly include fees for litigating the amount of fees, distinguishing such awards from statutorily-based fee awards that prohibit this practice. Statutorily-based fee restrictions are inapplicable where fees are awarded as sanctions.
[1] Attorney's fees may be awarded for the time spent litigating the amount of fees when such fees are awarded as sanctions for non-compliance with court orders.
[2] Statutorily based attorney's fees awards are distinguishable from fees awarded as sanctions.
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“because the fees awarded for litigating the issue of fees was a sanction and supported by substantial competent evidence, the award does not run afoul of State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Palma, 629 So.2d 830 (Fla.1993)”
Establishes that sanctions-based fees for litigating fee amounts are permissible and do not violate the prohibition in Palma, distinguishing this case from prior precedent
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 two orders in favor of the Village of Islamorada: one granting the Village's request for sanctions and another awarding attorn…
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 Sanctions For Non-Compliance With Court Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
On Motion for Rehearing or Motion for Written Opinion, Alternatively Motion for Rehearing En Banc
ROTHENBERG, Judge.
The appellants, Paul E. Bates, d/b/a Coconut Cove Resort, and Coconut Cove Resort and Marina, Inc., appeal two orders entered by the trial court in favor of the appellee, Islamorada, Village of Islands (“Village”). The two orders being appealed are an order granting the Village’s request for sanctions and an order granting attorney’s fees and costs to the Village. Oral argument was heard on October 11, 2005, after which this court issued its opinion affirming both orders per curiam. The appellants have requested rehearing or a written opinion, or in the alternative, re hearing en banc. These requests are based solely upon this court’s affirmance of that portion of attorney’s fees awarded to the Village for the time it spent litigating the amount of fees. While we deny the appellants’ motions for rehearing and rehearing en banc, and decline to issue an opinion addressing all of the issues raised on appeal, we issue this brief opinion to clarify this court’s ruling regarding the attorney’s fees awarded the Village for time it spent litigating the amount of fees, as this is the area of the appellants’ concern.
The appellants argue that fees may not be awarded for pursuing the amount of attorney’s fees the trial court awards, citing to several cases which have held that it is improper to do so. See Lugassy v. Indep. Fire Ins. Co., 636 So. 2d 1332, 1336 (Fla.1994); State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Palma, 629 So. 2d 830, 833 (Fla.1993); Wight v. Wight, 880 So. 2d 692, 695 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Paladyne Corp. v. Weindruch, 867 So. 2d 630, 634 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Barron Chase Sec., Inc. v. Moser, 794 So. 2d 649, 650 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Oruga Corp., Inc. v. AT & T Wireless of Fla., Inc., 712 So. 2d 1141, 1145 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Eisman v. Ross, 664 So. 2d 1128, 1129 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995).
A review of these cases, however, reveals that the fees awards relied upon statutes which did not provide for fees incurred litigating the amount to be awarded. The fees awarded in the instant case differ in that they were not statutorily based, and were instead, awarded as sanctions levied against the appellants for failing to comply with the trial court’s orders. This court, therefore, finds statutorily based fees awards inapplicable and distinguishable from the fees awarded in the instant case, and relies, as did the trial court, on Condren v. Bell, 853 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), which holds that “because the fees awarded for litigating the issue of fees was a sanction and supported by substantial competent evidence, the award does not run afoul of State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Palma, 629 So. 2d 830 (Fla.1993)....” Condren, 853 So. 2d at 610. We, therefore, find no conflict with the cited cases and deny rehearing.
Motion for rehearing, denied; motion for written opinion, granted in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jacquelyn Bennett and Bobbie Sue Miller v. Marie-Christine Berges, 50 So. 3d 1154 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…853 So. 2d 609, 610 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (holding that “because the fees awarded for litigating the issue of fees was a sanction and supported by substantial competent evidence, the award does not run afoul of [Palma ]”); accord Bates v. Islamorada, 939 So. 2d 171, 172 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (“The fees awarded in the instant case differ in that they were not statutorily based, and were instead, awarded as sanctions levied against the appellants for failing to comply with the trial court’s orders.”) (emphasis in o…
-
Diaz v. Kasinsky, 45 Fla. L. Weekly D1206 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)…ime spent in litigating the amount of fees.”).4 We disagree. “Florida generally follows the American Rule, under which each side pays its own attorney’s fees. Courts can order losing parties to pay victors’ fees, though, if 4 Bates v. Islamorada, 939 So. 2d 171, 172 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006), also relied upon by Diaz, is distinguishable. While the opinion is silent as to the basis for the sanctions affirmed therein, the briefs in that case reveal that the sanctions at issue were levied pursuant to an agreed tria…
Authorities Cited
- State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Palma, 629 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 1993)
- Oruga Corp., Inc. v. AT&T Wireless OF Fla., Inc., 712 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
- Jacques Lugassy v. Indep. Fire Ins. Co., 636 So. 2d 1332 (Fla. 1994)
- Eisman v. Lauri Ross, 664 So. 2d 1128 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Paladyne Corp. v. Weindruch, 867 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- Condren v. Lowry J. Bell, Jr., 853 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- Wight v. Wight, 880 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Voisin v. Voisin, 794 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Barron Chase Sec., Inc. v. Moser, 794 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)