Rayburn v. Bright
163 So. 3d 735
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Plaintiffs (Appellants) sued five defendants alleging seven counts including injunctive/declaratory relief, ways of necessity, trespass on the case, interference with easement, and slander of title; counts V and VI sought attorney’s fees under the wrongful-act doctrine as special damages.
- Bench trial occurred June 25, 2013; final judgment entered October 29, 2013: plaintiffs prevailed on counts I–IV and lost on counts V–VII (denying wrongful-act damages).
- After judgment, defendants filed pro se letters (Oct. 30 and Dec. 9, 2013); plaintiffs filed a motion for fees on November 27, 2013; the trial court later entered an April 8, 2014 order treating the Dec. 9 filing as a motion for clarification and holding the wrongful-act doctrine did not apply.
- Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on May 7, 2014 — more than six months after the October 29, 2013 final judgment.
- The appellate court raised jurisdiction sua sponte and analyzed whether any post-judgment filings tolled rendition of the final judgment for purposes of the 30-day appeal deadline.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs may recover attorney’s fees under the wrongful-act doctrine against William and Barrett Bright | Wrongful-act damages were pleaded in counts V and VI; plaintiffs argued they were entitled to fees as special damages | Trial court denied counts V and VI in final judgment; defendants did not contest timeliness on appeal | Not reached on merits; wrongful-act damages were denied in the final judgment and are not reviewable because appeal was untimely |
| Whether plaintiffs’ post-judgment filings (defendants’ pro se letters; plaintiffs’ fee motion; motion for clarification) tolled rendition and extended the appeal period | Plaintiffs implicitly contended post-judgment activity justified later appeal | Defendants argued letters were not authorized motions and did not suspend rendition; plaintiffs’ fee motion likewise was not an authorized motion to delay rendition | Court held none of the post-judgment filings suspended rendition; appeal was untimely and appellate court lacked jurisdiction |
| Whether appellate court had jurisdiction to hear the appeal filed May 7, 2014 | Plaintiffs asked court to review final judgment and April 8, 2014 clarification order | Defendants argued appeal was filed beyond the 30-day rule and no tolling applied | Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction for failure to timely file notice of appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Horowitz v. Laske, 855 So.2d 169 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (explaining wrongful-act doctrine permits recovery of third-party litigation expenses as element of damages)
- State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Pritcher, 546 So.2d 1060 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (discussing wrongful-act damages as recoverable litigation expense)
- Robbins v. McGrath, 955 So.2d 633 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (attorney’s fees under wrongful-act doctrine are special damages and must be specifically pled)
- Winselmann v. Reynolds, 690 So.2d 1325 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (special damages pleading requirement reiterated)
- Southland Constr., Inc. v. Greater Orlando Aviation, 860 So.2d 1031 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (wrongful-act doctrine is an element of damages, not a separate cause of action)
- David M. Dresdner, M.D., P.A. v. Charter Oak Fire Ins. Co., 972 So.2d 275 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (timely notice of appeal required within 30 days to confer appellate jurisdiction)
- Hawks v. Walker, 409 So.2d 524 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) (appeal timeliness and filing rule principles)
- Tyler v. State, Governor Chiles, 718 So.2d 811 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (motion for clarification is not a motion for rehearing unless raising new matters; does not toll rendition)
- Catalina Halnat, LLC v. Sun City Vending of S.F., Inc., 103 So.3d 927 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (motion for supplemental final judgment for fees is not an authorized motion that suspends rendition)