SANDRA SADLAK
v.
THE SHORES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC.
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.
Sandra Sadlak appeals a trial court judgment awarding appellate attorney's fees and expert witness fees to The Shores Community Association, Inc. following a prior foreclosure judgment against Sadlak for unpaid condominium assessments. The appellate court affirms the fee judgment, rejecting Sadlak's duplicative appeal on grounds including the law of the case doctrine.
The appellate court affirms the fee judgment and rejects Sadlak's appeal as duplicative, applying the law of the case doctrine to preclude relitigation of identical grounds previously addressed in the prior motion for review.
[1] The law of the case doctrine precludes reconsideration of an issue when an appellate court has already decided that identical issue between the same parties on the same f…
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 intelligence“Even though it consists only of citations of authority without further explanation, a per curiam decision of the appellate court is the law of the case between the same parties on the same issues and facts, and determines all issues necessarily involved in the appeal, whether mentioned in the court's opinion or not.”
Court explaining the law of the case doctrine in support of rejecting the duplicative appeal
Sadlak failed to pay condominium assessment fees to The Shores Community Association. Following a foreclosure judgment against Sadlak, the Association…
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 Expert Witness Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed October 6, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________ No. 3D21-385 Lower Tribunal No. 10-23029 ________________
Sandra Sadlak,
Appellant,
vs.
The Shores Community Association, Inc., Appellee. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Mark Blumstein, Judge. Kenzie N. Sadlak, PA, and Kenzie N. Sadlak, for appellant. Douglas H. Stein, P.A., and Douglas H. Stein, for appellee. Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and LOGUE and BOKOR, JJ. LOGUE, J.
In a prior case, we upheld a foreclosure judgment for The Shores Community Association, Inc., and against Sandra Sadlak based on Sadlak’s failure to pay condominium assessment fees. Sadlak v. Shores Cmty. Ass’n, 302 So. 3d 856 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (table). In that case, we also granted the Association’s motion for appellate attorney’s fees and remanded for an evidentiary hearing to fix the amount. On remand, after a contested evidentiary hearing, the trial court entered a judgment against Sadlak for the appellate attorney’s fees and for the expert witness fee of the attorney who testified as to the amount of the fees.
On January 19, 2021, Sadlak sought review of the attorney’s fees judgment by two avenues. First, Sadlak filed a motion for review of the award of attorney’s fees as provided by Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.400(c) (“Review of orders rendered by the lower tribunal under this rule shall be by motion filed in the court within 30 days of rendition.”). We denied the motion to review. Second, Sadlak filed the appeal at issue.
We have reviewed Sadlak’s prior motion for review filed in case number 3D19-1406 and find the grounds raised in this appeal identical to the grounds already raised. Without belaboring the point, we are bound to reject this duplicative appeal for several reasons, including the doctrine of the law of the case. Contreras v. Bank of New York Mellon, 259 So. 3d 310 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (holding: “Even though it consists only of citations of authority without further explanation, a per curiam decision of the appellate court is the law of the case between the same parties on the same issues and facts, and determines all issues necessarily involved in the appeal, whether mentioned in the court’s opinion or not.”) (quoting New England Ins. Co. v. Int’l Bank of Miami, N.A., 537 So. 2d 1025, 1025 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- NEW England Ins. Co. v. Int'l Bank OF Miami, N.A., 537 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Contreras v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 259 So. 3d 310 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)