FRANK DIGIACOMO AND LAW OFFICE OF FRANK DIGIACOMO, ESQUIRE, P.A.
v.
KOGAN & DISALVO, P.A. AND GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

Fla. 4th DCA | 2021-06-09
No. 21-0215
Damoorgian, J., Kuntz, J., Artau, J., Corlew, J.
317 So. 3d 1163 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (2021)
Cited by 1 case

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.


Holding

A party obtaining judgment is entitled to recover costs under section 57.041, Florida Statutes, as a matter of law, and the trial court has no discretion to deny such costs.


Headnotes

[1] Under Florida Statute § 57.041, a trial court lacks discretion to deny costs to a party that obtains judgment, and such costs must be awarded as a matter of law.

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

Key Quotes

“Where costs are sought based on section 57.041(1), a trial court has no discretion to deny the party obtaining judgment its lawful costs.”

Court citing Roberts v. Third Palm, LLC to establish the mandatory nature of cost awards under section 57.041.

Facts & Procedural History

Frank DiGiacomo and his law office were prevailing parties in a summary judgment action below. The trial court denied their requests for attorney's fe…

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.


Opinion of the Court
Artau

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

FRANK DIGIACOMO and LAW OFFICE OF FRANK DIGIACOMO, ESQUIRE, P.A., Appellants,

v.

KOGAN & DISALVO, P.A. et al., Appellee.

No. 4D21-215

[June 9, 2021]

Appeal from the County Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Reginald Roy Corlew, Judge; L.T. Case Nos. 50-2019-AP- 000148-CA-XXMB and 50-2017-SC-002453-XXXX-SB.

Salvatore DiGiacomo of Law Office of Frank DiGiacomo, P.A., Stuart, for appellants.

George M. Bakalar of Kogan & DiSalvo, P.A., Boynton Beach, for appellee.

DAMOORGIAN, J.

Frank DiGiacomo and Law Office of Frank DiGiacomo, Esquire, P.A. (“Defendants”), the prevailing parties below, appeal the court’s denial of their request for: (1) attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to section 768.79, Florida Statutes; (2) attorney’s fees as a sanction pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes; and (3) costs under section 57.041, Florida Statutes. We affirm the court’s denial of attorney’s fees and costs under sections 768.79 and 57.105 without further comment. We reverse, however, the court’s denial of costs under section 57.041.

Section 57.041 provides that “[t]he party recovering judgment shall recover all his or her legal costs.” § 57.041(1), Fla. Stat. (2019). “Where costs are sought based on section 57.041(1), a trial court has no discretion to deny the party obtaining judgment its lawful costs.” Roberts v. Third Palm, LLC, 300 So. 3d 1216, 1217 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020). As summary judgment was ultimately entered in Defendants’ favor below, they are

2

entitled to costs under section 57.041 as a matter of law.1 See id. at 1218 (holding that the defendant was entitled to costs under section 57.041 after summary judgment was entered in the defendant’s favor).

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the court to award Defendants costs under section 57.041, Florida Statutes.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

KUNTZ and ARTAU, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

Footnotes
1 Appellee Kogan & DiSalvo, P.A., the plaintiff below, concedes that Defendants are technically entitled to costs under section 57.041, but argues that Defendants waived the issue on appeal. Specifically, appellee argues that Defendants did not reference the statute in the issue statement portion of their initial brief. We disagree. Although Defendants did not specifically reference section 57.041 in their issue statement, they sufficiently referenced the motion for costs and addressed the argument in the body of the initial brief. See Hoskins v. State, 75 So. 3d 250, 257 (Fla. 2011) (recognizing that a party must sufficiently raise an argument in its initial brief or the argument will not be considered on appeal).

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw