REYNALDO ACOSTA AND ILIANA B. ACOSTA, APPELLANTS,
v.
TOWER HILL SIGNATURE 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.
The court affirmed the final judgment in favor of Tower Hill Signature Insurance Company but dismissed the appeal regarding attorney's fees as not ripe for review because no amount was fixed by the trial court.
An order granting entitlement to attorney's fees without establishing a specific amount is non-final and non-appealable, and appellate courts lack jurisdiction to review it.
[1] An order granting entitlement to attorney's fees without establishing a specific amount is non-final and non-appealable, and appellate courts lack jurisdiction to review…
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 intelligenceReynaldo Acosta and Iliana B. Acosta appealed a final judgment entered in favor of Tower Hill Signature Insurance Company, including an order granting…
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 Ripeness For Review cases and more on FLexlaw
We find no error with regard to the issues raised on appeal relating to the final judgment entered in favor of Tower Hill Signature Insurance Company and, therefore, affirm. Because the order granting Tower Hill Signature Insurance Company's entitlement to attorney's fees and costs from Reynaldo Acosta and Iliana B. Acosta did not establish an amount, it was *883a non-final, non-appealable order that is not ripe for our review. As such, we are without jurisdiction to address the portion of the appeal relating to attorney's fees. See Diaz v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 227 So.3d 735, 736-37 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) ("[W]e are without jurisdiction to address the portion of the appeal relating to attorney's fees .... because no amount has been fixed by the trial court and the part of the final judgment that finds entitlement thereto is not ripe for our review." (first citing Kling Corp. v. Hola Networks Corp., 127 So.3d 833, 833 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) ); then citing Mills v. Martinez, 909 So.2d 340, 342 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) ; and then citing Chaiken v. Suchman, 694 So.2d 115, 117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) ). "Nor is such an order one of the enumerated appealable non-final orders set forth in Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130." Id. at 737 (quoting Kling Corp., 127 So.3d at 833 ); see Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3). Accordingly, the appeal with respect to attorney's fees is dismissed without prejudice.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lenahan v. Lenahan (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)…nal judgment that merely determined the sister was entitled to fees, without affixing an amount, was not appealable and therefore was outside the scope of our jurisdiction and adjudication in 3D20-522. See Acosta v. Tower Hill Signature Ins. Co., 245 So. 3d 882, 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018). 3 requirement for seeking attorney’s fees set forth in Stockman v. Downs, 573 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 1991) does not apply here, we reverse.2 I. RELEVANT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY A. The Parties’ Pleadings This acti…
-
Golden v. Goldberg, 307 So. 3d 852 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)…es and costs incurred in litigating his fee petition. Because the trial court has not set an amount of fees and costs, if any, we are without jurisdiction to address that portion of the order on appeal. See Acosta v. Tower Hill Signature Ins. Co., 245 So. 3d 882, 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (“[W]e are without jurisdiction to address the portion of the appeal relating to attorney’s fees . . . because no amount has been fixed by the trial court and the part of the final judgment that finds entitlement thereto is n…
-
Alvarez v. Gonzalo Gamba (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)
Authorities Cited
- Mills v. Martinez, 909 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- Filmore Chaiken and Robert T. Tenen v. Suchman, 694 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- Kling Corp. v. Hola Networks Corp., 127 So. 3d 833 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)
- Diaz v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 227 So. 3d 735 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)