CARLTON JACKSON, APPELLANT,
v.
BETTY HOLMES ANTHONY, 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.
Carlton Jackson appealed the trial court's denial of his motion for attorney's fees and costs, arguing the motion was timely filed because a pending motion for newly discovered evidence and a motion for rehearing tolled the 30-day deadline under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525. The appellate court affirmed the denial, holding that neither motion tolls the statutory deadline, which runs from the filing of the judgment with the clerk.
The court held that neither a motion to admit newly discovered evidence nor a motion for rehearing tolls the 30-day time limit in rule 1.525. The judgment filed with the clerk constitutes a 'judgment' for purposes of rule 1.525, and the 30-day deadline begins to run from the date of that filing, regardless of pending ancillary motions.
[1] A motion for attorney's fees must be served no later than 30 days after the filing of the judgment.
[2] A motion for rehearing does not toll the 30-day time limit for filing a motion for attorney's fees.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Any party seeking a judgment taxing costs, attorneys' fees, or both shall serve a motion no later than 30 days after filing of the judgment, including a judgment of dismissal, or the service of a notice of voluntary dismissal.”
The controlling statute establishing the 30-day deadline for filing motions for attorney's fees.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA trial on specific performance of contract was held on September 18, 2008. The trial court filed judgment in favor of plaintiff on July 2, 2009. The …
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 Tolling Of Time Limits cases and more on FLexlaw
On September 18, 2008 a trial was held on an action for specific performance of a contract. After the trial, but prior to the filing of the judgment, Defendant filed a Motion to Admit and Consider Newly Discovered Evidence on December 8, 2008. The trial court filed a judgment in Plaintiffs favor with the Clerk on July 2, 2009. On July 9, 2009, Defendant filed a Motion for Rehearing. The Motion for Rehearing and the still-pending Motion to Admit and Consider Newly Discovered Evidence were both denied by order entered on August 26, 2009. On September 14, 2009, Appellant filed a Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs in the trial court. This motion was denied on November 10, 2009, because the judge found that it was untimely filed. The Motion for Fees was filed seventy-two days after the trial court filed its judgment with the clerk, and nineteen days after the trial court entered its order denying the motions to Admit and Consider Newly Discovered Evidence and for Rehearing.
*1286Appellant now appeals the trial court’s denial of the Motion for Attorney’s Fees and asserts that the motion was timely. He argues the judgment filed with the clerk did not constitute a “judgment” for purposes of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525 because at the time the judgment was filed, his previously filed Motion to Admit and Consider Newly Discovered Evidence was still pending. He also asserts that his post-judgment Motion for Rehearing tolled the time limit for his Motion for Attorney’s Fees. We disagree.
Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525 provides:
Any party seeking a judgment taxing costs, attorneys’ fees, or both shall serve a motion no later than 30 days after filing of the judgment, including a judgment of dismissal, or the service of a notice of voluntary dismissal.
(Emphasis added).
Appellant failed to file his motion for attorney’s fees within 30 days of the filing of the judgment with the clerk. A motion for rehearing does not toll the 30-day time limit in rule 1.525. See Manimal Land Co. v. Randall E. Stofft Architects, P.A., 889 So.2d 974 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Clampitt v. Britts, 897 So.2d 557 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).
Likewise, a post-trial Motion to Admit and Consider Newly Discovered Evidence, does not toll the 30-day time limit. The filing of the judgment with the clerk signals that the judicial labor has come to an end. Appellant’s prejudgment request to consider more evidence does not stay the filing of the judgment. Such a motion is merely a request that the court devote more judicial labor to the case. Counsel was put on notice that the court considered the judicial labor at an end. Therefore, the judgment filed in this case constituted a “judgment” as contemplated by rule 1.525 and the 30-day time limit for the motion for attorney’s fees began to run from the date of its filing.
AFFIRMED.
DAVIS, CLARK, and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hovercraft OF S. Fla., LLC v. Reynolds, 211 So. 3d 1073 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…P. 1.525, The rule sets forth an outside deadline of thirty days for service of the motion. Barco v. Sch. Bd. of Pinellas Cty., 975 So. 2d 1116, 1124 (Fla. 2008). The thirty-day time limit is not tolled by a motion for rehearing. Jackson v. Anthony, 39 So. 3d 1285, 1286 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). Though an extension of time may be granted, absent excusable neglect, a motion seeking an extension must be filed within the thirty-day time period. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.090(b); see also Hart v. City of Groveland, 919 So.…
Authorities Cited
- Clampitt v. Jarrell Britts, 897 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Manimal Land Co. v. Randall E. Stofft Architects, P.A., 889 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)