Charles E. Freeman v. Patrick Rice
548 F. App'x 594
11th Cir.2013Background
- Freeman, pro se, appeals a district court decision granting Rice $14,982.50 in appellate attorney’s fees.
- Rice sought appellate fees arising from Rice’s successful appeal in the Eleventh Circuit.
- The fees were awarded after a magistrate judge’s recommendation and district court adoption.
- The district court treated the fee request under Eleventh Circuit Rule 39-2(b), not Florida Rule 1.525.
- Freeman previously challenged the underlying state court judgments enforcing the lease-related fees.
- This appeal asks whether the fee award was proper under governing rules and the lease’s fee provision, Paragraph 25.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rice’s fee request complied with Rule 39-2 and not Rule 9(g). | Freeman argues noncompliance with pleading standards. | Rice’s fee motion falls under Rule 39-2(b) as an appellate request. | Yes; Rule 39-2(b) governs, not Rule 9(g). |
| Whether Rice was timely to seek appellate fees. | Rice failed to file within Florida Rule 1.525 timelines. | Rule 39-2(a) governs appellate fees and exceptions applied; timely per order. | Timeliness was permitted by the court’s extension. |
| Whether fees were proper under the lease, Paragraph 25. | Freeman contends the suit did not enforce the lease. | Rice's original action alleged breach of a residential lease; fees authorized by Paragraph 25. | Fees appropriate under Paragraph 25 of the lease. |
Key Cases Cited
- Common Cause/Ga. v. Billups, 554 F.3d 1340 (11th Cir. 2009) (controls filing and timing for appellate fee applications under Rule 39-2(a))
- Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (S. Ct. 2007) (pleading standards for complaints (non-Rule 9(g) context))
- Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (S. Ct. 2009) (pleading standards for factual sufficiency)
- Vega v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 564 F.3d 1251 (11th Cir. 2009) (application of pleading standards in specific contexts)
- Lance v. Dennis, 546 U.S. 459 (S. Ct. 2006) (Rooker-Feldman doctrine clarifications)
- Cast er v. Hennessey, 781 F.2d 1569 (11th Cir. 1986) (state pleading rules not applying in federal court)
- Villano v. City of Boynton Beach, 254 F.3d 1302 (11th Cir. 2001) (standard of review for attorney’s fees)