RAMLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
THE GREENS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., 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.
Ramle International Corporation appealed a trial court's denial of its motion for attorney's fees as untimely. The Third District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525's thirty-day filing deadline does not apply when a trial court has determined entitlement to attorney's fees in its final judgment but reserves jurisdiction only to determine the amounts.
Rule 1.525's thirty-day deadline does not apply when the trial court has determined entitlement to attorney's fees and costs in its final judgment but reserves jurisdiction only to determine the amounts. Once entitlement is determined, the losing party is aware it must pay and concerns of prejudice and unfair surprise are eliminated.
[1] Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525 does not apply when a trial court has determined entitlement to attorney's fees and costs in its final judgment and reserved jurisdi…
[2] The purpose of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525 is to prevent prejudice and unfair surprise to a party obligated to pay attorney's fees and costs.
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“Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525 does not apply when the trial court has determined entitlement 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.”
This establishes the central holding that Rule 1.525's thirty-day deadline does not apply when entitlement is already determined.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn June 13, 2007, the trial court entered final summary judgment in favor of Ramle against The Greens Condominium Association and awarded Ramle 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.
Ramie International Corporation appeals a circuit court order denying its motion for attorney’s fees as being untimely filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525.
On June 13, 2007, a final summary judgment was rendered in favor of Ramie against The Greens Condominium Association. As part of the judgment, the circuit court awarded Ramie attorney’s fees and costs and reserved jurisdiction to determine the amounts of those fees and costs. Eleven months later, on May 2, 2008, Ramie filed its motion to determine attorney’s fees and costs. The Association filed an opposing memorandum alleging that Ramie failed to file its motion within the thirty-day time limit set forth in Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525. The trial court denied Ramie’s motion as untimely, and Ramie appealed. We reverse and remand for a determination of Ramie’s attorney’s fees and costs.
The Florida Supreme Court has recently held that “Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525 does not apply when the trial court has determined entitlement 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:
*648Once the trial court determines that the prevailing party is entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs, the losing party is aware that it is required to pay the fees and costs. At that point the concerns of prejudice and unfair surprise to the losing party are eliminated, thus eliminating the need to apply the thirty-day time requirement under rule 1.525.
Amerus, 2 So.3d at 207.
In the instant ease, as in Amerus, the prevailing party’s entitlement to attorneys’ fees had already been determined, and the trial court merely reserved jurisdiction to determine the amounts. Although the eleven-month delay in this case exceeds the eight-month delay in Amerus, we do not believe that distinction makes a difference in the analysis or outcome.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jaffe v. In re Guardianship of Michael Ross Jaffe, 147 So. 3d 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)…5 (Fla.1985). A trial court can reserve jurisdiction to determine the amount of a prevailing party’s attorney’s fees and costs once it has been determined that the prevailing party is entitled to them. Ramie Int’l Corp. v. Greens Condo. Ass’n, Inc., 32 So. 3d 647, 648 (Fla.3d DCA 2010). In the case at bar, Levy, as Carr’s counsel, and Zamora, as her expert witness, are both costs that became part of the guardianship administration because Levy’s representation and Zamora’s testimony were used to determine t…
-
Kalb v. Nack Holding, LLC, 79 So. 3d 175 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…xception to this requirement is when the trial court has already, in the judgment, determined entitlement to attorney’s fees as part of the relief granted to the prevailing party. See Lait, 2 So. 3d at 207; Ramle Int’l Corp. v. Greens Condo. Ass’n., 32 So. 3d 647, 648 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010). In this case, Nack Holding is not entitled to trial level attorney’s fees because it did not comply with the applicable requirements. The trial court’s judgment was issued on October 20, 2009, while Nack Holding’s motion fo…
-
Finnegan v. Noreen Compton, 154 So. 3d 370 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…e trial court has already, in the judgment, determined entitlement to attorney’s fees as part of the relief granted to the prevailing party.” Kalb v. Nack Holding, LLC, 79 So. 3d 175, 176 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012); Ramle Int’l Corp. v. Greens Condo. Ass’n, 32 So. 3d 647, 647-48 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010). The justification for the second scenario is that “[i]f a party already has a judgment granting attorney’s fees and costs, it would appear superfluous to require such a party to file a motion seeking to tax them again. Th…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Amerus Life Ins. Co. v. Lait, 2 So. 3d 203 (Fla. 2009)
- Chamizo v. Forman, 933 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)