ROBERT TAYLOR, TIM TAYLOR, SCOTT TAYLOR, JIM TAYLOR, SUSAN DANIELSON, PATTY MERRICK, ANDY TAYLOR, TONY TAYLOR, MARCELLA FROEHLICH, CHARLOTTE BLANKS, BRADLEY TAYLOR INMAN, AND CHARLES INMAN, APPELLANTS,
v.
MARY E. MILLER, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE MARY E. LONG REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST ADOPTED SEPTEMBER 18, 2003, AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE UNDER THE MARY E. LONG LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT AND ROBERT L. MILLER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE OF THE MARY E. LONG REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST DATED SEPTEMBER 18, 2003, AND ALTERNATE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE UNDER THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF MARY E. LONG, 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 reversed the trial court's denial of plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees, holding that such a motion filed after jury verdict but before final judgment entry is timely under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525.
A motion for attorneys' fees and costs filed after jury verdict but before entry of final judgment is timely under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525.
[1] A motion for attorneys' fees and costs filed after jury verdict but before entry of final judgment is timely under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525, which does not m…
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 intelligencePlaintiffs filed a motion for attorneys' fees and costs after jury verdict but before final judgment entry. The circuit court denied the motion as unt…
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 Florida Rule Of Civil Procedure 1.525 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellants, who were the plaintiffs in the circuit court action, have challenged a final judgment in favor of the defendants on the plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. The circuit court apparently denied the plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees as untimely based upon the reasoning expressed in Barco v. School Board of Pinellas County, 946 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007), a decision recently quashed by the Florida Supreme Court. 975 So. 2d 1116 (Fla.2008). Therefore, the appellants have filed a “motion for reversal under consent,” which we grant.
A motion for attorneys’ fees and costs filed after the jury verdict but before the entry of the final judgment is timely under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525 (2006 amend.). See Barco, 33 Fla. L. Weekly at S90, 975 So. 2d at 1118 (holding that rule 1.525 does not mandate service of a motion for attorneys’ fees or costs only within a thirty-day window following the filing of the judgment) (emphasis added). There fore, we reverse the final judgment on attorneys’ fees as well as the circuit court’s orders striking the plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees and denying the plaintiffs’ motions for rehearing and reconsideration. Furthermore, we remand for reinstatement of the circuit court’s order granting the plaintiffs’ motion for entitlement to attorneys’ fees, and for further proceedings as necessary.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
CASANUEVA, SALCINES, and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cupido v. Auto owners Ins (15th Cir. Ct. App. Div. 2016)…le is to establish only an outside deadline for service of the motion.") There is no requirement that motions seeking fees and costs filed prior to a judgment or dismissal must be renewed within thirty days after the dismissal. See Taylor v. Miller, 977 So. 2d 799, 799 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (finding that Rule 1.525 does not require service of a motion for fees within a thirty day window after the filing of the judgment). Accordingly, we find that Auto-Owners timely filed its motion in accordance with Rule 1.525.…
Authorities Cited
- Barco v. Sch. Bd. OF Pinellas Cnty., 975 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 2008)
- Barco v. Sch. Bd. OF Pinellas Cnty., 946 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)