187 So. 3d 879
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2016Background
- Appellee Crystal Harrington was awarded "prevailing party" appellate attorneys’ fees by this Court after Travelers I (86 So. 3d 1274), and the trial court entered fee judgments while the Florida Supreme Court review of the merits remained pending.
- Travelers and its surety filed stays and bonds; the Florida Supreme Court later stayed further enforcement but then lifted the stay as to fee enforcement while granting review of the merits.
- The Florida Supreme Court quashed Travelers I in Travelers II (154 So. 3d 1106), undermining the appellate fee award’s premise.
- After the supreme court’s decision, Travelers sought relief under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(5) in the trial court to vacate the fee judgments as derivative of the reversed merits judgment; the trial court denied relief twice.
- This Court subsequently vacated its earlier fee award in Travelers I and relinquished jurisdiction to allow the trial court to reconsider the 1.540(b)(5) motions; the trial court again denied vacatur.
- On consolidated appeal, the First District reversed, holding rule 1.540(b)(5) is the appropriate mechanism to vacate attorney-fee judgments that rest on a reversed merits judgment and that the trial court abused its discretion in denying vacatur.
Issues
| Issue | Harrington (Plaintiff) Argument | Travelers (Defendant) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a trial court may vacate a final attorneys’ fees judgment under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540(b)(5) after the underlying merits judgment is reversed | The fee judgment was final and not timely appealed under Fla. R. App. P. 9.400(c); review should have been sought there | Rule 1.540(b)(5) can and should be used to vacate a fee judgment that is predicated on a reversed merits judgment | Court held 1.540(b)(5) is available and appropriate to vacate fee judgments that derive from a reversed merits judgment; trial court erred in denying relief |
| Whether appellants’ tactical decision not to pursue an immediate appeal of the fee order precludes relief under Rule 1.540(b)(5) | Harrington argued Travelers’ tactical choices preclude using Rule 1.540 to undo those choices | Travelers argued delay or tactic does not bar 1.540(b)(5) relief where the underlying basis (prevailing-party status) no longer exists | Court held tactical choices did not bar relief; reversal of merits removed appellee’s prevailing-party status so vacatur was proper |
| Whether appellate leave or an appeal under Fla. R. App. P. 9.400(c) was required before a trial court entertains a 1.540(b)(5) motion after mandate | Harrington relied on supreme court language that relief should have been sought under Rule 9.400(c) | Travelers argued appellate leave/appeal is not a prerequisite and trial court can hear 1.540 motions post-mandate | Court followed precedent aligning with FRCP 60(b) and held appellate leave/appeal not required; trial court may adjudicate 1.540(b)(5) motion |
| Whether federal decisions interpreting Rule 60(b) provide persuasive guidance | Harrington urged deference to state rule and procedural requirements | Travelers cited federal Rule 60(b) cases holding fee awards are set aside when merits reversal removes prevailing-party status | Court found federal Rule 60(b) decisions persuasive and consistent with Florida precedent permitting trial courts to grant relief under 1.540(b)(5) |
Key Cases Cited
- Travelers Commercial Ins. Co. v. Harrington, 154 So. 3d 1106 (Fla. 2014) (Florida Supreme Court quashed the district court opinion underlying the original fee award)
- Travelers Commercial Ins. Co. v. Harrington, 86 So. 3d 1274 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (initial First DCA opinion that awarded prevailing-party appellate fees)
- Citizens Property Ins. Co. v. Uebershaer, 981 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (vacatur of appellate fee award where prevailing-party status no longer existed)
- Viets v. Am. Recruiters Enters., Inc., 922 So. 2d 1090 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (vacating appellate fee award under similar circumstances is mandatory)
- Ohio Cas. Grp. v. Parrish, 350 So. 2d 466 (Fla. 1977) (Florida Supreme Court adopting the view that appellate leave is not required before entertaining a 1.540 motion post-mandate)
- Miller v. Fortune Ins. Co., 484 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 1986) (Rule 1.540(b) should be liberally construed to correct injustices and clerical/substantive errors)