CERTIFIED MARINE EXPEDITIONS, APPELLANT,
v.
FREEPORT SHIPBUILDING, INC., 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.
Certified Marine Expeditions obtained an arbitration award and sought attorneys' fees and costs. The trial court awarded costs but denied fees because the motion lacked expert testimony support. The appellate court affirmed the denial of fees but reversed the cost award because the motion was untimely under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525.
A reservation of jurisdiction does not extend the time to seek attorneys' fees and costs, and motions for such relief must be served within 30 days after filing of a judgment under Rule 1.525 unless a motion for extension of time is filed under Rule 1.090(b) with evidence of excusable neglect. The trial court erred in finding excusable neglect because the appellant presented no evidence of excusable neglect to the trial court.
[1] A motion for attorneys' fees must be served within 30 days after the filing of a judgment.
[2] A reservation of jurisdiction in an order does not extend the time to seek attorneys' fees or costs.
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“a party seeking fees or costs must comply with the thirty-day filing [sic] requirement of rule 1.525 'unless, by motion filed pursuant to [Florida Rule of Civil Procedure] 1.090(b) either before or after the 30 days has run, the movant seeks an enlargement of time.'”
Establishes that reservation of jurisdiction does not extend the 30-day deadline; only a Rule 1.090(b) motion for extension can do so
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCertified Marine Expeditions obtained an order confirming an arbitration award in its favor and thereafter moved for attorneys' fees and costs. The tr…
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 Motion For Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
BROWNING, J.
Appellant obtained an order confirming an arbitration award in its favor, and thereafter moved for attorneys’ fees and costs. The trial court found the motion was timely and awarded costs, but denied fees on the ground that the request was not supported by expert testimony. We affirm the denial of fees and reverse the award of costs because the motion was untimely.
Motions for attorneys’ fees must be served within 30 days after filing of a judgment. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.525. Appellant served its motion 31 days after rendition of the order confirming the arbitration award, yet Appellant argues that its motion was not untimely because, in the order, the trial court reserved jurisdiction to award fees and costs. Recently, this court addressed this argument in Braxton v. Morris, 914 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).
In Braxton, we concluded that a reservation of jurisdiction does not extend the time to seek attorneys’ fees, saying “a party seeking fees or costs must comply with the thirty-day filing [sic] requirement of rule 1.525 ‘unless, by motion filed pursuant to [Florida Rule of Civil Procedure] 1.090(b) either before or after the 30 days has run, the movant seeks an enlargement of time.’ ” Id. at 9 (citation omitted). Rule 1.090(b) provides for an extension of time on a showing of excusable neglect. Although Appellant moved to have the trial court treat its amended motion for costs and attorneys’ fees as a motion for extension of time under this rule, Appellant is not entitled to relief.
The trial court did treat Appellant’s amended motion as a rule 1.090(b) motion and found that Appellant showed excusable neglect. We hold that the trial court erred in doing so, because Appellant never presented any evidence of excusable neglect to the trial court.
We emphasize that, despite loose language in other opinions from this and other courts, rule 1.525 speaks to service, rather than filing, of motions for costs or attorneys’ fees. Cf., e.g., Braxton; Smith v. Smith, 902 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); Fisher v. John Carter & Assocs., 864 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Gulf Landings Ass’n, Inc. v. Hershberger, 845 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Wentworth v. Johnson, 845 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Ulico Casualty Co. v. Roger Kennedy Construction, Inc., 821 So. 2d 452, 453 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).
For the above reasons, we hereby AFFIRM in part and REVERSE in part the trial court’s order, and REMAND for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion. As we did in Braxton, we certify conflict with Fisher. KAHN, C.J.; and THOMAS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Martin Daytona Corp. v. Strickland Constr. Servs., 941 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…alone in adopting this view; recent case law from another district court has applied rule 1.525 to a motion for fees and costs based on an award emanating from arbitration proceedings. See Certified Marine Expeditions v. Freeport Shipbuilding, Inc., 914 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). Martin’s argument that rule 1.525 does not apply to arbitration proceedings is premised on rule 1.010, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that the civil procedure rules “apply to all actions of a civil nature.” Ma…
Authorities Cited
- Fisher v. John Carter & Assocs., Inc., 864 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
- Wentworth v. Johnson, 845 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
- Gulf Landings Ass'n, Inc. v. Hershberger, 845 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Ulico Cas. Co. v. Roger Kennedy Constr., Inc., 821 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- Smith v. Smith, 902 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)
- Sullivan v. State, 902 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)
- Braxton v. Morris, 914 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)