JOSE LUIS MAYNOLDI AND OLGA MAYNOLDI, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS LEGAL GUARDIANS OF GABRIEL MAYNOLDI, APPELLANTS,
v.
ARCHBISHOP COLEMAN F. CARROLL HIGH SCHOOL, INC., A NONPROFIT FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND ARCHDIOCESE OF MIAMI, INC., A NONPROFIT FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of attorneys' fees and costs. The Maynoldis sought these fees under Rule 1.380(c) because the defendants allegedly denied requests for admission without good reason, even though the defendants ultimately prevailed on the main claim.
No, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for attorneys' fees and costs. The court found that there was no basis for awarding expenses under Rule 1.380(c) in this case.
[1] A party requesting admissions is entitled to reasonable expenses incurred in proving the truth of a denied request for admission, even if final judgment was entered in th…
[2] A trial court has discretion to deny expenses under Rule 1.380(c) when there was a good reason for the failure to admit.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“While, under appropriate circumstances, a party requesting admissions is entitled to the reasonable expenses incurred in proving the truth of a denied request for admission— even where, as here, final judgment was entered in the opposing party’s favor on the underlying complaint — we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s determination that there is no basis for awarding Rule 1.380(c) expenses in this case.”
This quote establishes the general rule for awarding fees under Rule 1.380(c) and the appellate court's finding that the trial court did not err in this specific instance.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Maynoldis sought attorneys' fees and costs under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.380(c) after the defendants denied certain requests for admissi…
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 Requests For Admissions cases and more on FLexlaw
Jose Luis Maynoldi and Olga Maynoldi, individually and as legal guardians of Gabriel Maynoldi, appeal from an order denying their motion for attorneys’ fees and costs under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.380(c) based on Archbishop Coleman F. Carroll High School, Inc. and Archdiocese of Miami, Inc.’s denial of certain requests for admission. While, under appropriate circumstances, a party re*1150questing admissions is entitled to the reasonable expenses incurred in proving the truth of a denied request for admission— even where, as here, final judgment was entered in the opposing party’s favor on the underlying complaint — we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s determination that there is no basis for awarding Rule 1.380(c) expenses in this case. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.380(c) (“The court shall issue such an order at the time a party requesting the admissions proves the genuineness of the document or the truth of the matter, upon motion by the requesting party, unless it finds that ... (3) there was other good reason for the failure to admit.”); Arena Parking, Inc. v. Lon Worth Crow Ins. Agency, 768 So.2d 1107, 1113 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (recognizing that the trial court has the discretion to deny Rule 1.380(c) expenses where it finds that one of the exceptions contained within the rule applies, and holding that the expenses incurred “as a result of the opposing party’s failure to admit requests for admissions may not be assessed against the opposing party for denying a request to admit a hotly contested, central issue to the case”). We also note that, even where Rule 1.380(c) expenses must be awarded, “an award of attorney’s fees as a part of those expenses is discretionary.” Chadwick v. Corbin, 476 So.2d 1366, 1368 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); see also Shaw v. State ex rel. Butterworth, 616 So.2d 1094, 1096 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (finding that an assessment of attorney’s fees is not mandatory under Rule 1.380(c)).
Accordingly, the order on appeal is, in all respects, affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Haas Automation, Inc. v. FOX, 243 So. 3d 1017 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)…t action against a roofer-as required by rule 1.442(c)(3) ). The standard of review of the grant or denial of a request for attorney's fees under rule 1.380(c) is abuse of discretion. See Maynoldi v. Archbishop Coleman F. Carroll High School, Inc., 62 So. 3d 1149, 1150 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011). Ordinarily, this Court would remand for the trial court to determine upon which of the denials its entitlement determination was based, and to make an award only with respect to those denials. See Arena Parking, 768 So. 2d…
-
Haas Automation, Inc. v. Fox (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)
Authorities Cited
- Kisner v. State, 768 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
- Shaw v. State, 616 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- Leamon and Nellie Jean Chadwick v. Corbin, 476 So. 2d 1366 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)