LAKE REGION PARADISE ISLAND, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, PETITIONER,
v.
HAROLD GRAVISS, RESPONDENT
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.
Lake Region Paradise Island sought certiorari review of a trial court order awarding costs to the opposing party following a mistrial declaration. The Florida appellate court held that costs may only be taxed upon final determination of an action, and the trial court lacked authority to award costs after a mistrial when no misconduct occurred.
The trial court lacked authority to award costs after a mistrial. Costs are taxable only pursuant to statute or rule, and under Florida law, allowable costs are taxable only upon the determination or end of an action, which occurs at or following final judgment. The cost award was therefore improper.
[1] Common law certiorari is an appropriate remedy to review a non-appealable order awarding costs after a declaration of mistrial.
[2] Costs are taxable only pursuant to statute or rule.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Costs are taxable only pursuant to statute or rule; and under the facts here, wherein no punitive sanctions are appropriate, we are unaware of any statute or rule which is applicable.”
Establishes that costs awards must be authorized by statute or rule and that the trial court lacked such authority in this case.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring an employment contract dispute trial, a juror was injured when she tripped on a step as the jury was being excused at the end of the second day…
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 Punitive Sanctions cases and more on FLexlaw
McNULTY, Chief Judge.
We consider this day a petition for common law certiorari to review a non-appeal-able order 1 awarding costs after a declaration of mistrial. We grant the writ.
Plaintiff-respondent Graviss filed suit against petitioner Lake Region on a contract of employment. After the issues had been joined and at the end of the second day of trial the judge continued the trial until the following morning and directed the bailiff to remove the jury. One of the lady jurors tripped on a step as she went out the door. As the bailiff was trying to get her up Mr. Paul, one of the officers of petitioner Lake Region, heard the commotion and helped the lady bailiff pick up the injured juror Mr. Paul asked the injured juror if she wanted him to bring her car to her. Another lady juror went with Mr. Paul to show him where the car was parked. The bailiff waited with the injured juror until Mr. Paul returned with the car, helped her get into the car and left the scene. This occurrence was reported to the trial judge, who characterized it as “a very honest unavoidable thing” and a situation where Mr. Paul was “just at the wrong place at the right time.”
Notwithstanding the objection of Grav-iss, the trial court, on his own motion, declared a mistrial. Graviss filed a motion to tax costs to which Lake Region objected. Upon hearing, the court entered an order taxing costs against Lake Region in the amount of $2,869.76, holding that Grav-iss was entitled to recover costs notwithstanding the fact that no misconduct on the part of Lake Region or its agents was responsible for the mistrial. Costs are taxable only pursuant to statute or rule; and under the facts here, wherein no punitive sanctions are appropriate, we are unaware of any statute or rule which is applicable. We think, therefore, that the trial court was without authority to enter the cost award under review.
Section 57.021, F.S.1973, provides as follows:
“Costs; taxing. — The clerk or the judge shall tax the costs accruing in each action when it is determined and shall keep a duplicate of the costs bill on file among the original papers in the action. Each item of costs shall be enumerated in the bill.” (Italics ours.)
We construe this statute to mean that allowable costs of an action are taxable only upon the determination or end of the action. That, of course, would be at or following final judgment.2
With respect to any rules relating to costs prior to final judgment, absent those punitive in nature, we find none applicable to the facts here. In any case, the necessarily incurred additional costs resulting from the mistrial are certainly amenable to taxation as may be appropriate pursuant to § 57.021, supra, when the action is ultimately “determined.”
The trial court being without authority or power to enter the order under review,3 and thus having departed from the essential requirements of law, certiorari is appropriate. Accordingly, our writ therefor should, and it does hereby, issue quashing that order. GRIMES and SCHEB, JJ., concur. . Cf. Gore v. Hansen (Fla.1952), 59 So. 2d 538.
. Cf. Roberts v. Askew (Fla.1972), 260 So. 2d 492.
. See 20 Am.Jur.2d Costs § 17 (1965) at p. 16.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
NCN Elec., Inc. v. Leto, 498 So. 2d 1377 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…le actions. Costs are taxable only pursuant to a statute or rule, Johnson v. Schnee [*1378] gold, 419 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), and generally the taxation occurs at or following the final judgment. Lake Region Paradise Island, Inc. v. Graviss, 323 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); see also Data Lease Financial Corporation v. Blackhawk Heating & Plumbing Co., Inc., 384 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). Indeed, our supreme court has said that “costs may be adjudicated after final judgment, after the expiration…
-
State v. Griffin, 332 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)…la.App. 2d, 1964), 162 So. 2d 325. But cf. Giachetti v. Johnson (Fla.App. 2d, 1975), 308 So. 2d 143. A similar rule applies to an order awarding costs after a declaration of mistrial, Lake Region Paradise Island, Inc. v. Graviss (Fla.App. 2d, 1975), 323 So. 2d 610. . See Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. (1949), 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528; Sprague v. Ticonic National Bank (1939), 307 U.S. 161, 59 S.Ct. 777, 83 L.Ed. 1184; Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund v. Greenough (1882),…
-
Ervin A. Higgs v. Klock, 873 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…hroughout the litigation, including at those stages in which he may have been less than successful. See Thornburg, 476 So. 2d at 323; Hendry Tractor Co. v. Fernandez, 432 So. 2d 1315 (Fla.1983); see also Lake Region Paradise Island, Inc. v. Graviss, 323 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975) (costs not taxable against party causing mistrial; determination of entitlement to costs must await final judgment).3 As the [*593] First District Court of Appeal has pointed out: Generally speaking, costs represent “a judicial a…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Roberts v. Reubin O'D. Askew, 260 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 1972)
- Gore v. Hansen, 59 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 1952)