ROBERT F. SULLIVAN, APPELLANT,
v.
FREDERICK T. RANK AND J. GRAYDON RANK, BART E. SULLIVAN, EXECUTOR FOR THE ESTATE OF GERTRUDE P. RANK, MRS. ROBERT FAULKNER AND MRS. MAYBELLE PULLING, 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 appellate court affirmed a lower court's decision to assess court costs and accounting expenses against Robert F. Sullivan. The court found no abuse of discretion in the chancellor's apportionment of costs, which included significant auditor fees for discovering substantial errors in an accounting.
No, the chancellor did not abuse his discretion in assessing the costs against Robert F. Sullivan.
“In equity, costs should be granted and assessed as the justice of the case demands, and this determination is within the sound judicial discretion of the chancellor.”
Establishes the principle that cost assessment in equity is discretionary.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFollowing a prior decree that reserved the assessment of court costs and accounting expenses, the chancellor heard the matter and assessed one half of…
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 Court Costs Assessment cases and more on FLexlaw
In the appealed case of Rank v. Sullivan, Fla.App., 132 So.2d 32, the final decree reserved the assessing of court costs and certain accounting expenses to be determined later. Pursuant to this provision, the matter was subsequently heard by the chancellor and assessment of one half of both the court costs and the cost of auditing and accounting was rendered against Robert F. Sullivan. Through appeal, he protests this decision. The major portion of the costs is the allowance for auditors’ compefl-*38sation. The larger part of the testimony, over 200 pages,, concerned an accounting; and from this accounting substantial errors were revealed and corrections made accordingly. These errors were discovered through the services of appellees’ auditors.
In equity, costs should be granted and assessed as the justice of the case demands, and this determination is within the sound judicial discretion of the chancellor. In the absence of a clear showing of abuse of discretion, the chancellor’s ruling will not be disturbed by an appellate court. National Rating Bureau v. Florida Power Corp., Fla., 1956, 94 So.2d 809, 64 A.L.R.2d 859; Dillman v. Dillman, Fla.App., 1958, 105 So.2d 33; 8 Fla.Jur., Costs, sections 8-10, p. 9-11. We do not find that such an abuse has been shown. It appears instead that the chancellor made his apportionment of costs because of the particular circumstances involved.
Affirmed.
ALLEN, C. J., and SANDLER, HARRY N., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cruger v. Allstate Ins. Co., 162 So. 2d 690 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)…abuse of discretion has been demonstrated in the decision of costs by the chancellor, and his award will not be disturbed. See: National Rating Bureau v. Florida Power Corp., Fla. 1956, 94 So. 2d 809, 64 A.L.R.2d 859; Sullivan v. Rank, Fla.App.1961, 132 So. 2d 37. Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the appeal here under review is affirmed. Affirmed. . As of the rendition of this opinion, the constitutionality of this section of the Statute has not been determined and, it not being necessary to deter…
-
Hurwitz v. C. G. J. Corp., 168 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)…s on this point stand affirmed. Turning now to the appellants’ contention with regard to costs, we are of the view that the chancellor did not abuse his discretion in assessing half the costs against each party. See Sullivan v. Rank, Fla.App. 1961, 132 So. 2d 37. The appellee cross-assigns as error the chancellor’s award to appellants of damages to the entire leasehold estate when only 37% of the leasehold interest is represented in this action. A portion of the damages complained of was to the entire leas…
-
Rank v. Bart E. Sullivan for the Estate of Gertrude P. Rank, 132 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Nat'l Rating Bureau, Inc. v. Fla. Power Corp., 94 So. 2d 809 (Fla. 1956)
- Dillman v. Dillman, 105 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)
- Rank v. Bart E. Sullivan for the Estate of Gertrude P. Rank, 132 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)