ACOSTA
v.
TOWER HILL SIGNATURE INS. CO.
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.
An order granting entitlement to attorney's fees without establishing a specific amount is non-final and non-appealable for lack of ripeness.
[1] An order granting entitlement to attorney's fees and costs without establishing a specific amount is a non-final, non-appealable order that lacks ripeness for appellate r…
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“we are without jurisdiction to address the portion of the appeal relating to attorney's fees . . . because no amount has been fixed by the trial court and the part of the final judgment that finds entitlement thereto is not ripe for our review.”
Court's explanation for dismissing the attorney's fees portion of the appeal
Reynaldo and Iliana Acosta brought an insurance action against Tower Hill Signature Insurance Company. The trial court entered a final judgment in fav…
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 Ripeness For Review cases and more on FLexlaw
LINDSEY, J.
We find no error with regard to the issues raised on appeal relating to the final judgment entered in favor of Tower Hill Signature Insurance Company and, therefore, affirm. Because the order granting Tower Hill Signature Insurance Company’s entitlement to attorney’s fees and costs from Reynaldo Acosta and Iliana B. Acosta did not establish an amount, it was a non-final, non-appealable order that is not ripe for our review. As such, we are without jurisdiction to address the portion of the appeal relating to attorney’s fees. See Diaz v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 227 So. 3d 735, 736-37 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (“[W]e are without jurisdiction to address the portion of the appeal relating to attorney’s fees . . . . because no amount has been fixed by the trial court and the part of the final judgment that finds entitlement thereto is not ripe for our review.” (first citing Kling Corp. v. Hola Networks Corp., 127 So. 3d 833, 833 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)); then citing Mills v. Martinez, 909 So. 2d 340, 342 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); and then citing Chaiken v. Suchman, 694 So. 2d 115, 117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)). “Nor is such an order one of the enumerated appealable non-final orders set forth in Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130.” Id. at 737 (quoting Kling Corp., 127 So. 3d at 833); see Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3). Accordingly, the appeal with respect to attorney’s fees is dismissed without prejudice. Affirmed in part; dismissed in part.
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Mills v. Martinez, 909 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- Filmore Chaiken and Robert T. Tenen v. Suchman, 694 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- Kling Corp. v. Hola Networks Corp., 127 So. 3d 833 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)
- Diaz v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 227 So. 3d 735 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)