DANIEL G. SIEGEL, SIMON B. SIEGEL, BEVERLY SIEGEL, RANDY T. SIEGEL AND NANCY S. NASTO, APPELLANTS,
v.
J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, JUDITH S. NOVAK, INDIVIDUALLY AND JUDITH S. NOVAK AND J.P. MORGAN TRUST COMPANY, N.A., AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ESTATE OF DOROTHY H. RAUTBORD, DECEASED, 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.
The court reversed an award of attorney's fees because the underlying judgment on which the fee award was based had been previously reversed on appeal.
When an underlying judgment is reversed on appeal, any attorney's fees awarded based on that judgment must also be reversed.
[1] When an underlying judgment is reversed on appeal, an award of attorney's fees based on that judgment must also be reversed, even if the appellate court previously denied…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Where a court awards prevailing party attorney's fees and the underlying judgment is vacated, the attorney's fee judgment must also be vacated.”
The court cited this principle from Viets v. American Recruiters Enterprises, Inc. to support reversal of the fee award.
The appellants appealed a final judgment awarding attorney's fees to the appellees. The court had previously reversed the underlying judgment in Siege…
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 Vacating Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from a final judgment awarding attorney’s fees. We reversed, however, the underlying judgment. Siegel v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, 71 So.3d 935 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). Therefore, as conceded by appellees, the award of attorney’s fees and costs must likewise be reversed. See S & I Invs. v. Payless Flea Mkt., Inc., 40 So.3d 48, 49 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (quoting Viets v. Am. Recruiters Enters., Inc., 922 So.2d 1090, 1096 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (“ Where a court awards prevailing party attorney’s fees and the underlying judgment is vacated, the attorney’s fee judgment must also be vacated.’”); see also R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Grossman, 96 So.3d 948, 948 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (where underlying judgment is reversed and remanded for trial, the prevailing party cost judgment must be reversed as well).
We reject the contention that our denial of an award of appellate attorney’s fees in the prior appeal constitutes the “law of the case” as to any award of attorney’s fees in the trial court should the appellees prevail ultimately in the trial court proceedings. See, e.g., McNamara v. City of Lake Worth, 956 So.2d 509, 510-11 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). We simply determined that appellees were not entitled to a fee for the appellate representation in that appeal. As well, the other issues raised in this appeal depend upon factual determinations yet to be made by the trial court.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
MAY, C.J., WARNER and POLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lucas Games, Inc. v. Morris AR Assocs., LLC, 212 So. 3d 405 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)…peal we reversed the underlying summary judgment order. See Lucas Games Inc. v. Morris AR Assocs., LLC, 197 So. 3d 1183 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). We now reverse the award of attorneys’ fees that was based upon that order. See Siegel v. J.P. Morgan Chase, 100 So. 3d 783, 783 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). Reversed. Warner, Gerber and Kuntz, JJ., concur.…
-
Ring Power Corp. v. Condado-Perez, 224 So. 3d 885 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…this appeal is based, Ring Power Corp. v. Condado-Perez, 219 So. 3d 1028, 1030 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017), we reverse the order on attorney’s fees. See ARC Foods, Inc. v. MGI Props., 746 So. 2d 514, 514 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Siegel v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, 100 So. 3d 783, 784 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012); S & I Invs. v. Payless Flea Mkt., Inc., 40 So. 3d 48, 49 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). Reversed. KHOUZAM, SALARIO, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Terrie G. Viets v. Am. Recruiters Enters., Inc., 922 So. 2d 1090 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- Bailey v. McDONOUGH, 956 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
- S & I Invs. v. Payless Flea Mkt., Inc., 40 So. 3d 48 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- Siegel v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, 71 So. 3d 935 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)
- Hebert Michel v. State, 96 So. 3d 948 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)
- R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Grossman, 96 So. 3d 948 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)