SIMON E. RUBIN ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
LEONARD SANFORD, 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.
Fired firemen challenged their discharge and won reinstatement through multiple appellate victories. On remand, the trial court awarded them full back pay without mitigation for interim earnings and fixed attorney's fees for appellate work, but the appellate court reversed both rulings as exceeding the trial court's jurisdiction and violating procedural requirements.
The court reversed both the mitigation issue and the attorney's fees award. On mitigation, the court applied the holding of Rubin v. Shapiro. On attorney's fees, the court held that no fees should have been allowed for the Personnel Board hearing (as those are awarded by the Board itself) and that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to fix fees for appellate services, which require a motion filed in accordance with appellate procedural rules.
“No attorney's fees should have been allowed for services rendered at the first personnel hearing, as these fees [when the employee is successful] are awarded by the Board.”
Establishes that the trial court lacked authority to award fees for Personnel Board services, which are within the Board's jurisdiction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellee and other firemen were discharged by the City of Miami Beach. They obtained reinstatement through circuit court proceedings, which was af…
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 Back Pay Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellee and others were discharged as firemen by the City of Miami Beach. Thereafter, they were ordered reinstated by circuit court proceedings; affirmed in this court and certiorari denied by the Supreme Court of Florida. See: Rubin v. Sanford, Fla.App.1964, 168 So.2d 774; Rubin v. Shapiro, Fla.App.1965, 170 So.2d 460; Rubin v. Sanford, Fla.1965, 180 So.2d 331. The background of the removals is set forth in the opinion of this court, found in Rubin v. Sanford, supra. Following their reinstatement, the firemen moved to require the City to account to them for their entire pay during the period they were not working for the City. The City was ordered to make full restitution with no mitigation by taking into account the actual earnings of the appellee [and others similarly situated] during the disciplinary proceedings. The circuit court also proceeded .to fix attorneys’ fees for services rendered to the appellee before the Personnel Board and in the appellate proceedings. The Personnel Board has prosecuted this appeal, contending the trial court erred in not taking into account the earnings of the firemen in mitigation of the sums due them and in fixing attorneys’ fees.
We reverse as to the mitigation upon the authority of Rubin v. Shapiro, Fla.App.1967, 198 So.2d 854 (opinion filed this day), and reverse as to the attorney’s fees because of the following: No attorney’s fees should have been allowed for services rendered at the first personnel hearing, as these fees [when the employee is successful] are awarded by the Board.1 The trial court was not possessed of the jurisdiction to fix fees for appellate services. See: Anderson v. Anderson, Fla.App.1965, 180 So.2d 360; Howell v. Howell, Fla.App. 1966, 183 So.2d 261. Counsel having failed to file a motion for fees before the appellate courts, in accordance with the rules of procedure, waive the right to appellate fees. See: Rule 3.16(e), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 31 F.S.A.; Ames v. Ames, Fla.App.1963, 153 So.2d 737; Poling v. City Bank & Trust Company of St. Petersburg, Fla.App.1966, 189 So.2d 176.
Therefore, the final order here under review is hereby reversed, and this cause is *858remanded to the trial court for .the purpose of reascertaining the amount of back pay due the appellee and the amount of attorney’s fees to be allowed for services in the trial court.
Reversed and remanded, with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sanford v. Rubin, 237 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 1970)…rd District Court of Appeal holding that the City was entitled to set off what these firemen had earned in outside employment against the salaries due the firemen. Rubin et al. v. Shapiro, 198 So. 2d 854 (Fla.App.3rd, 1967); Rubin et al. v. Sanford, 198 So. 2d 856 (Fla.App.3rd, 1967). In the latter opinion, the District Court on remand ordered the trial court to ascertain the amount of attorneys’ fees to be allowed for services in the trial court. Once again, Shapiro and Sanford sought certiorari and their pe…1 / 3
-
Rubin v. Sanford, 218 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)…dge. These cases have been before this court on previous occasions. See: Rubin v. Sanford, Fla.App.1964, 168 So. 2d 774; Rubin v. Shapiro, Fla.App.1965, 170 So. 2d 460; Rubin v. Shapiro, Fla.App.1967, 198 So. 2d 854; Rubin v. Sanford, Fla.App.1967, 198 So. 2d 856.1 Subsequent to mandates in the prior appeals, the respective courts awarded attorneys’ fees to the appellees’ counsel and these appeals ensued. They were briefed separately and argued separately. During the argument in Rubin v. Shapiro [Case Nos.…
-
Rubin v. Major, 209 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…determined by the Court, if final determination is as a result of Court action.” Section 9, Chapter 18696, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1937, as amended by Section 8, Chapter 27735, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1951.. . Cf. Rubin v. Sanford, Fla.App.1967, 198 So. 2d 856.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ames v. Ames, 153 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- Rubin v. Sanford, 168 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Douglas v. City OF Dunedin, 189 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)
- Rubin v. Shapiro, 198 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Rubin v. Sanford, 180 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 1965)
- Anderson v. Anderson, 180 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Rubin v. Shapiro, 170 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Revenell v. State, 183 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966)
- Howell v. Howell, 183 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)