JANETH SUE THURMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN W. THURMAN, 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 held that the order assessing costs against the attorney departed from the essential requirements of law and should be quashed.
An attorney appealed an interlocutory order assessing costs against him. The appellee failed to file a brief. The record lacked a notice to the party …
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 Assessment Of Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from an interlocutory order in a cause formerly recognized in chancery. The order assessed costs against an attorney of record in the cause. The attorney has appealed the order.
Under the authority of § 59.45, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., and Rule 4.2, F.A.R., 32 F.S.A., we have considered the appeal as a petition for certiorari. We hold that appellant has a right to bring the petition under the law stated in Deans v. Wilcoxon, 18 Fla. 531 (1882); State ex rel. Landis v. Crawford, 104 Fla. 440, 140 So. 333 (1932).
The appellee has failed to file a brief in support of the trial court’s order and has thus thrust upon this court the task of an unaided examination of the record. We find that the record does not reflect a notice to the party to be charged. Further we find nothing in the record to support the court’s departure from the directions of § 57.041, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., or the rule stated in Burnett v. Burnett, Fla. App.1967, 197 So.2d 854.
It appears to us that the order under review departs from the essential requirement of law. It is therefore quashed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
W.S.M., JR. v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 692 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…there will be sufficient time for the latter party to file any objections he may have to all or any part of such itemization and for the court to hear and adjudicate such items by the time it enters the final judgment or decree. Thurman v. Thurman, 223 So. 2d 572, 573 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969); Sullivan v. Musella, 526 So. 2d 719, 721 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 534 So. 2d 401 (Fla.1988). We leave to the trial court on remand, in the event of a dispute about particular items, the task of identifying which claime…
Authorities Cited
- Deans v. Wilcoxon, 18 Fla. 531 (Fla. 1882)
- In re Est. of John J. Stephens, 197 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)
- State v. Crawford, 104 Fla. 440 (Fla. 1932)