65 So. 3d 90
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- Decedent died in 1988; Frank Baltzell ( appellee) and Anne Bright (appellant) were beneficiaries-related parties to the estate and trust.
- A settlement in 1990 divided trust assets; probate case administratively closed in 1996, later reopened for inventory inspection in 1998.
- In 2007, Anne sued Frank for breach of contract and specific performance to distribute trust assets; trial was repeatedly reset due to Anne’s conduct.
- On the trial day, Anne voluntarily dismissed the case; Frank sought attorney’s fees under Florida’s offer of judgment statute and the Florida Trust Code.
- Trial court awarded $151,820.35 in fees and $18,940.83 in costs (including travel); appellate court reversed in part and affirmed in part, remanding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether fees under 768.79 were proper | Baltzell contends second dismissal entitles fees under 768.79 | Bright argues dismissal was not with prejudice and not a second dismissal | Not entitled to fees under 768.79 |
| Whether fees were authorized by the Florida Trust Code | Baltzell argues trust code supports fees | Bright asserts action sounded in contract, not trust code | Trust code not applicable; breach of contract not a trust proceeding |
| Whether the dismissal amounted to an adjudication on the merits for purposes of fees | Baltzell maintains dismissal transformed case to merit adjudication | Bright disputes merit adjudication basis | No merit adjudication; fees not supported on this basis |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding costs, including travel | Baltzell seeks full costs as taxed | Bright challenges travel costs as improper | No abuse; travel costs permissible under circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- MX Investments, Inc. v. Crawford, 700 So.2d 640 (Fla. 1997) (interprets 'voluntary' vs 'involuntary' dismissal in §768.79(6))
- Tucker v. Ohren, 739 So.2d 684 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (rejects argument based on statute of limitations as merit-adjudicating device)
- Stockman v. Downs, 573 So.2d 835 (Fla. 1991) (exception to fee entitlement under trust-related actions)
- Miller v. Hayman, 766 So.2d 1116 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (travel expenses may be taxable in rare/egregious dismissal cases)
- Coastal Petroleum Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 583 So.2d 1022 (Fla. 1991) (enhanced costs allowed in egregious dismissal conduct)
- Madison v. Midland Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 648 So.2d 1226 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (discretion to award enhanced costs when warranted by facts)
- Bauer v. DILIB, Inc., 16 So.3d 318 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (de novo review when entitlement to attorney’s fees is statutory)
- Hirschenson v. Hirschenson, 996 So.2d 905 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (statutory interpretation of fee entitlement in family/estate context)