MAGIC TINTING WINDOW & CAR ALARM, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY, 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.
Court denied appellee's motion for appellate attorney fees under section 768.79 despite appellant's voluntary dismissal of appeal, following precedent requiring de minimis appellate activity.
Appellate attorney fees under section 768.79 are denied when an appellant voluntarily dismisses its appeal before briefing, despite minimal appellate activity.
[1] Under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.400 and section 768.79, appellate attorney fees are denied when the appellate record reflects de minimis activity, even when t…
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 intelligenceScottsdale obtained a final judgment against Magic Tinting on October 2, 2013. Magic Tinting filed a notice of appeal on October 29, 2013, but volunta…
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 Voluntary Dismissal Of Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
This case is before us on Scottsdale Insurance Company’s (Scottsdale) amended motion for appellate attorney fees filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.400. Scottsdale’s claim for fees is based upon section 768.79, Florida Statutes (2013) (Florida’s “Offer of judgment and demand for judgment” statute); Scottsdale served a proposal for settlement on Magic Tinting Window & Car Alarm, Inc. (Magic Tinting) on or about March 21, 2006.
Scottsdale prevailed below and obtained a final judgment in its favor on October 2, 2013. Magic Tinting filed its notice of appeal of the final judgment with this court on October 29, 2013. Before any briefing, Magic Tinting voluntarily dismissed its appeal on August 18, 2014.
We deny Scottsdale’s amended motion for appellate attorney fees. See Sanchez v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 997 So.2d 1209, 1209 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (denying motion for appellate attorney fees when appellate record reflected “de minimis” activity).1
Motion denied.
ROTHENBERG, J., concurs.
concurring.
I would simply deny Scottsdale’s amended motion for appellate attorney fees. See Sanchez v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 997 So.2d 1209 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008).
LOGUE, J.,
concurring.
I would simply deny Scottsdale’s amended motion for appellate attorney fees. See Sanchez v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 997 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Sanchez v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 997 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)
- First Real Est., LLC v. Grant, 88 So. 3d 1073 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)
- Tawayna Braxton v. Grabowski, 125 So. 3d 936 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)