FREDERICK J. KEITEL, III, APPELLANT,
v.
DIANE DE LA BEGASSIERE KEITEL, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 1997-11-12
No. 96-2425
GLICKSTEIN, PARIENTE and GROSS, JJ., concur.
701 So. 2d 413 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1997) Caution
Cited by 2 cases


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

We grant appellee’s motion for rehearing or clarification. We withdraw our previous opinion and replace it with the following.

On the motion of one of the parties, the trial court was empowered to determine which party was responsible for the expert witness fees incurred at a section 741.30, Florida Statutes (1995) extension hearing and to liquidate the amount. See § 92.231, Fla. Stat. (1995). The witnesses were two of appellee’s treating physicians. In preparation for the hearing, appellee deposed the doctors, with the intent of using the transcripts at the hearing. Appellant subpoenaed both doctors to the hearing and they both appeared. The trial court determined that appellant should bear the burden of the doctors’ bills for their court appearances, since he subpoenaed them to the hearing. We reverse that portion of the order that compels payments to the experts within ten days. Such language implies that the order would be enforceable through civil contempt, which it is not. Section 92.231(2), Florida Statutes (1995), allows an expert witness fee to be “taxed as costs.” Section 57.041(2), Florida Statutes (1995), authorizes a party recovering judgment to recover legal costs by a judgment or order. Appellee is not entitled to a judgment for these costs since there is no indication in the record that she paid them or that she is legally responsible for their payment. Nothing in this opinion should be read as a limitation or comment on the experts’ pursuit of any appropriate remedy to secure payment.

GLICKSTEIN, PARIENTE and GROSS, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • …rd, is responsible for the fee. Murphy did not address the situation presented here, but rather the taxing of costs when a prevailing party calls an expert witness to testify. More importantly, a similar situation was addressed in Keitel v. Keitel, 701 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), wherein the expert witnesses were appellee’s treating physicians whom appellee deposed, planning to use the depositions at trial. See id. However, the appellant subpoenaed both doctors and they appeared at trial. See id. This co…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw