PAN AMERICAN BANK OF SARASOTA, APPELLANT,
v.
A. D. HANCOCK AND AMANDA JANE HANCOCK, HUSBAND AND WIFE, AND LEE-BRADLEY CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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 court held that a successful party cannot be assessed costs and that a gratuitous statement granting a party the right to file a cross-claim after trial is error.
Plaintiffs were awarded damages against Pan American Bank. The Bank's cross-claim against Lee-Bradley Corporation was denied, but the court ordered Le…
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 Award Of Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
BOARDMAN, Chief Judge.
Appellees/plaintiffs, A. D. and Amanda Jane Hancock, were awarded damages of $21,577.50 plus interest, plus costs against appellant/defendant, Pan American Bank of Sarasota. The cross-claim filed against Pan American Bank of Sarasota by cross-appellant/defendant, Lee-Bradley Corporation, was denied by the trial court. The court ordered Lee-Bradley Corporation to pay the costs assessed against Pan American Bank.
We affirm the final judgment of the trial court except that part ordering Lee-Bradley Corporation to pay the court costs which we reverse and vacate. Costs are not generally awarded against a successful party. See G. M. Dykes Iron Works, Inc. v. Dehenffe, 131 So. 2d 760 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961); 8 Fla. Jur. Costs § 7 (1956). Since Lee-Bradley Corporation was not found liable on any cause of action asserted against it, it was a successful party and is not subject to assessment of costs.
The final judgment also included a gratuitous statement that “[d]efendant, PAN AMERICAN BANK OF SARASOTA, reserves its right to file a Cross-Claim against the LEE-BRADLEY CORPORATION for all sums assessed and paid under this Judgment by the Bank to Plaintiffs.” Lee-Bradley argues that it was error to SUA SPONTE, GRANT PAN AMERICAN THE RIGHT TO FILE THE COMPULSORY COUNTER-CLAIM [sic] AFTER THE CLOSE OF THE TRIAL.
We note that the court did not award judgment in favor of Pan American on the trial judge’s suggestion made in announcing the final judgment that it file for indemnification from Lee-Bradley. This point is raised prematurely and is not at issue here. We do not then decide whether Pan American may later be estopped from filing against Lee-Bradley Corporation.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
HOBSON, J. and McNULTY, JOSEPH P. (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Scudder v. Greenbrier C. Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 663 So. 2d 1362 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…ne-rider rule” reasonable. VI. ATTORNEY’S FEES In light of our holding, it is necessary for the trial court to re-determine the entitlement to attorney’s fees and costs for the second trial. See generally, Pan American Bank of Sarasota v. Hancock, 352 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977) (costs are not generally awarded against a successful party). Nevertheless, the Associations’ award of $17,599.95 which was reinstated for the first trial must be affirmed because the Associations must still be considered the prev…
Authorities Cited
- G. M. Dykes Iron Works, Inc. v. Dehenffe, 131 So. 2d 760 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)