Hovercraft of South Florida, LLC v. Reynolds
211 So. 3d 1073
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Hovercraft owned a marina; dispute over use of four boat slips resulted in consolidated final judgment on June 29, 2010, awarding damages and injunctive relief to Reynolds, Seijo, the Fischers, and the Kaleels. Each judgment section stated: “The Court reserves jurisdiction to determine attorney’s fees and costs.”
- Hovercraft filed a motion for new trial/rehearing on June 30, 2010; that motion was denied November 24, 2010.
- Appellees filed motions for attorney’s fees on December 15 and 22, 2010 — more than 30 days after the final judgment but within 30 days of denial of rehearing. Reynolds and Fischer never moved for an extension under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.090(b); Seijo and Kaleel later sought relief under rule 1.090(b).
- Trial court awarded attorney’s fees, reasoning (1) AmerUs allowed tolling when entitlement was decided in the judgment and only amount was reserved, and (2) alternatively, Seijo and Kaleel established excusable neglect permitting late filing.
- Hovercraft appealed, arguing the 30-day deadline of Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.525 applied because the final judgment did not determine entitlement to fees, and that excusable neglect was not shown.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 30-day Rule 1.525 deadline applies where final judgment “reserves jurisdiction to determine attorney’s fees.” | Appellees: AmerUs means entitlement was determined and 30-day rule does not apply when court reserves only amount. | Hovercraft: Judgment did not determine entitlement; simple reservation of jurisdiction does not avoid Rule 1.525. | Court: Reserved-jurisdiction language alone does not avoid Rule 1.525; motion for fees had to be filed within 30 days. |
| Whether excusable neglect justified late filing under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.090(b) for Seijo and Kaleel (and implicitly for others). | Seijo & Kaleel: Counsel relied on local practice and communications, believing rehearing tolled deadline; filed extension motion showing reliance. | Hovercraft: No excusable neglect; failure was due to counsel’s legal mistake/misunderstanding, not a mechanical breakdown or oversight. | Court: Finding of excusable neglect was an abuse of discretion—counsel’s legal mistake is not excusable neglect; plus no evidence of operational breakdown. Reynolds and Fischer never sought enlargement, so their claims fail. |
Key Cases Cited
- AmerUs Life Ins. Co. v. Lait, 2 So. 3d 203 (Fla. 2009) (a judgment that specifies a party is entitled to fees and reserves only the amount may avoid Rule 1.525’s 30-day filing requirement)
- Barco v. School Bd. of Pinellas Cty., 975 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 2008) (Rule 1.525 creates a bright-line 30-day deadline for motions seeking fees)
- Hart v. City of Groveland, 919 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (extensions under Rule 1.090(b) must be sought within the 30-day window absent excusable neglect)
- Carter v. Lake Cty., 840 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (factors for excusable neglect include prejudice, reason for delay, duration, and good faith)
- Peterson v. Lake Surprise II Condo. Assoc., 118 So. 3d 313 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (attorney’s ignorance or misunderstanding of law is not excusable neglect)
- Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380 (U.S. 1993) (framework for evaluating excusable neglect factors)