FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION D/B/A PROGRESS ENERGY FLORIDA, INC., N/K/A DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC., D/B/A DUKE ENERGY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
FIRST BAPTIST INSTITUTIONAL CHURCH OF ST. PETERSBURG, INC., A FLORIDA NON-PROFIT CORPORATION, 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.
Florida Power Corporation (Duke Energy) appeals the trial court's award of attorney's fees and costs to First Baptist Institutional Church following a judgment voiding an easement. The appellate court affirmed the attorney's fee award but reversed and remanded regarding a portion of the cost award for unnecessary expert witness services.
The court affirmed the attorney's fee award because Duke Energy did not timely appeal the underlying judgment voiding the easement, making the challenge to attorney's fees an untimely attack on the final judgment. The court reversed the cost award to the extent it included $28,154 for the Calhoun firm's services, which were unnecessary and unsupported by the record.
[1] An award of attorney's fees will be affirmed when the underlying judgment in favor of the prevailing party has not been appealed.
[2] Expert witness fees are not recoverable when the services provided were unnecessary to the resolution of the case.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Duke Energy never appealed the underlying order that voided the easement, and its challenge to the attorney's fee award amounts to an untimely attack on the propriety of the final judgment.”
Establishes the procedural bar to appealing attorney's fees when the underlying judgment is not appealed
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFirst Baptist granted an easement to Duke Energy. The trial court subsequently voided the easement and entered final judgment in favor of First Baptis…
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 Expert Witness Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
Florida Power Corporation (Duke Energy) appeals the trial court’s Order and Final Judgment Awarding Attorney’s Fees of $229,387.50 to First Baptist Institutional Church of St. Petersburg, Inc. (First Baptist). Duke Energy also appeals the trial court’s Order Taxing Costs of $35,614.92 in favor of First Baptist. The attorney’s fee award and the cost award followed the entry of a final judgment in favor of First Baptist that voided an easement granted by First Baptist to Duke Energy. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Notably, Duke Energy never appealed the underlying order that voided the easement, and its challenge to the attorney’s fee award amounts to an untimely attack on the propriety of the final judgment. Accordingly, we are compelled to affirm the attorney’s fee award in favor of First Baptist. See Utterback v. Starkey, 669 So.2d 304, 305 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Hemmerle v. Air Conditioning Equip., Inc., 635 So.2d 1053, 1053 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).
For the same reason, we affirm in part the order taxing costs in favor of First Baptist. However, we reverse the order taxing costs to the extent that it awarded $28,154 for the expert witness services of Calhoun, Collister & Parham, Inc., a real estate appraisal firm specializing in litigation work. The Calhoun firm never performed an appraisal of the property in question, and there was no issue of value in the case. Accordingly, the Calhoun *104firm’s services were unnecessary, and the testimony of Mr. Jess Collister was irrelevant. There is no support in the record for an award of expert witness fees to the Calhoun firm. It follows that the trial court abused its discretion with regard to the entry of the order taxing costs to the extent of $28,154 for the services of the Calhoun firm. See Seminole Cty. v. Chandrinos, 816 So.2d 1241, 1244-45 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Dep’t of Transp. v. Springs Land Invs., Ltd., 695 So.2d 414, 417 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (“An owner does not have carte blanche to incur unnecessary fees, and not all expenses an owner incurs may be collected.”). On remand, the trial court shall enter an amended order taxing costs that removes the $28,154 amount from the total cost award.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
CRENSHAW and SLEET, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Seminole Cnty. v. Faye R. Chandrinos, 816 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- Skeen v. Ferrer, 669 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- Dep't OF Transp. v. Springs Land Invs. Ltd., 695 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)
- Kenneth v. Hemmerle, 635 So. 2d 1053 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Alvarez v. State, 635 So. 2d 1053 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Utterback v. Starkey, 669 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)