JANICE KNOX, WINTHROP S. KNOX, AND WILLIAM C. TAGLAND, APPELLANTS,
v.
PPC, LLC, A FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, POOL PEOPLE COMMERCIAL, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, RECREATIONAL DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, STEVEN L. SIEMS, INDIVIDUALLY, AND JOE CERRONE, 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 affirmed the trial court's contempt finding but dismissed the appeal of attorneys' fees as premature because the trial court had not yet set a final amount.
An appeal of an order awarding attorneys' fees as a sanction is premature and not appealable until the trial court sets a final amount for those fees.
[1] An order awarding attorneys' fees as a sanction is not final and appealable until the trial court has set a specific amount for those fees.
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“orders awarding attorneys' fees are only final and therefore appealable once the trial court has set the amount of those fees”
The court explained the requirement for finality of attorneys' fees awards before they become appealable.
Appellants Janice Knox, Winthrop S. Knox, and William C. Tagland were found in contempt and ordered to pay attorneys' fees and costs to appellees PPC,…
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 Adequate Record On Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellants Janice Knox, Winthrop S. Knox, and William C. Tagland appeal the order granting Appellees PPC, LLC, Recreational Design & Construction, Inc., Steven L. Siems, and Joe' Cerrone’s amended motion for contempt and sanctions against Appellants entered prior to a final judgment in Appellees’ favor. Appellants challenge the trial court’s finding of contempt, as well as the trial court’s award of attorneys’ fees and costs to Appellees as a sanction in the order of contempt. Because Appellants have failed to provide an adequate record on appeal, we are unable to review the finding of contempt and therefore affirm. Bah v. Bah, 947 So.2d 621, 621 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (citing Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150 (Fla.1979)).
'As to the award of attorneys’ fees, we have previously noted that “orders awarding attorneys’ fees are only final and therefore appealable once the trial court has set the amount of those fees.” Alexo-poulos v. Gordon Hargrove & James, P.A., 109 So.3d 248, 250 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (emphasis in original). “An order merely finding entitlement to attorneys’ fees is a non-final, rion-appealable order.” Id. (emphasis in original). The same is true of an award of attorneys’ fees as a sanction against a party in favor of the other. See Cummings v., Campbell, 7 So,3d 1Í35,1137 (Fla. 4-th DCA 2009). • Whereas there has been no final judgment as to the amount of the award of attorneys’ fees against Appellants in the instant case, we dismiss the appeal as to this issue because it is premature. See id.
Affirmed in part; Dismissed in part.
CIKLIN, FORST and ' KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Pitcher v. Schneider (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Albert v. Applegate et ux., 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979)
- Ekaterini Alexopoulos and Konstantinos Alexopoulos v. Gordon Hargrove & James, P.A., 109 So. 3d 248 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)
- Itzhak BAK v. BAK, 947 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)