UNITED FURNITURE COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
I. F. REGISTER ET AL., 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.
United Furniture Company appeals an order denying costs after receiving a judgment discharging it from liability in the trial court. The appellate court reverses the denial of costs, holding that a prevailing defendant is entitled to costs, though it affirms the trial court's setting aside of the initial cost judgment due to lack of notice to cross-plaintiffs.
A prevailing defendant is entitled to costs as a matter of law. The trial court properly set aside its initial cost judgment because the cross-plaintiffs lacked notice of the hearing, but the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion for costs altogether.
[1] A defendant who receives a judgment discharging it from liability in the trial court is entitled to recover costs.
[2] An order setting aside a cost judgment may be affirmed if the trial court lacked notice to a party for the hearing at which costs were determined.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“This is an interlocutory appeal from an order denying costs to a defendant who received a judgment in the trial court discharging it from liability. As such, it must be reversed.”
Establishes the core holding that a prevailing defendant must be awarded costs as a matter of law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceUnited Furniture Company was a defendant in a lawsuit and received a judgment discharging it from liability. The trial court initially entered a cost …
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 Taxable Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an interlocutory appeal from an order denying costs to a defendant who received a judgment in the trial court discharging it from liability. As such, it must be reversed. See Ossinsky v. Nance, Fla. App.1960, 118 So. 2d 47; Jordan v. Reynolds, Fla.App.1963, 154 So. 2d 200; Spicuglia v. Green, Fla.App. 1974, 302 So. 2d 772.
The final judgment in this cause was entered on the 27th of May, 1975. Upon defendant United Furniture’s motion for costs, the trial court entered a cost judgment in the amount of $4,361.26. The judgment was entered against the plaintiffs and cross-plaintiffs jointly. Upon motion of the cross-plaintiffs, the cost judgment was set aside. On this appeal, the defendant urges (1) that it is entitled to costs and (2) that the trial court erred in setting aside its prior determination of costs. Inasmuch as it appears from the record that the ground upon which the trial court set aside its judgment of costs may have been that the cross-plaintiffs had no notice of the hearing, the order setting aside the cost judgment is affirmed insofar as it set aside the previously-entered order. The second aspect of the order which denied defendant’s motion to tax costs must be reversed on authority of the above cited cases.
Whereupon, the order is affirmed in part, reversed in part and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to proceed to determine taxable costs in this matter and to assess said costs against respective parties according to whether the costs to be allowed were incurred upon the defense of the complaint or the cross-complaints respectively.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kendall E. Ests., Inc. v. David P. Banks & Joan S. Banks, 386 So. 2d 1245 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…ion at law for money damages, the trial court was obliged by the terms of Section 57.041, Florida Statutes (1979) to assess costs in its favor.1 E. g., Murray v. Plastridge, Inc., 338 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); United Furniture Co. v. Register, 328 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Jordan v. Reynolds, 154 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963). This result is required notwithstanding the fact that the Banks reduced the amount of the plaintiff’s net judgment by the successful pursuit of their counterclaim. Cases coll…
Authorities Cited
- Pan-American Life Ins. Co. v. Lorido, 154 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Spicuglia v. Green, 302 So. 2d 772 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)
- Ossinsky v. Dayton Nance, 118 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960)