184 So. 3d 620
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2016Background
- Trial court granted Hector Castro prevailing-party status over Diane and Thomas Wells on October 22, 2012, reversing an arbitrator's finding.
- Wellses petitioned this Court for writ of mandamus and moved for appellate attorneys’ fees under section 57.105; this Court granted relief on July 10, 2013 and remanded to the trial court to determine the amount of appellate fees and costs.
- On remand the trial court awarded $36,000 in appellate attorneys’ fees and $1,409.77 in costs (total $44,609.77) on December 10, 2014 (Appellate Fee Judgment).
- Petitioners moved to alter the judgment, arguing the trial court failed to include prejudgment interest on the $36,000 fee award as required by law; the trial court denied the motion.
- Petitioners sought appellate review under Fla. R. App. P. 9.400(c); respondents argued Rule 9.410 controlled but the court found jurisdiction under 9.400(c).
- Respondents tendered payment of $44,783.93 (judgment plus post-judgment interest to Jan 9, 2015) without prejudice; court credited any paid amount against the final judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate review of the trial-court fee-on-remand order may proceed by motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.400(c) | Wells: Rule 9.400(c) allows review of orders rendered on remand; timely because rehearing suspended rendition | Castro: Rule 9.410 governs sanctions/fees and does not permit motion review | Court: 9.400(c) applies; court has jurisdiction to consider the motion for review |
| Whether prejudgment interest must be awarded on the $36,000 attorneys’ fee award under section 57.105 and Florida law | Wells: Prejudgment interest accrues from date entitlement fixed (July 10, 2013) to judgment date and must be included per §57.105(1) and controlling case law | Castro: (implicit) trial court omitted interest; argued different procedural rule but offered no controlling authority excusing omission | Court: Prejudgment interest is required from July 10, 2013 through Dec 10, 2014; trial court erred in omitting it |
| Whether prejudgment interest merges into final judgment and accrues post-judgment interest; effect of respondent’s unconditional tender | Wells: Prejudgment interest merges and thereafter accrues post-judgment interest; any payment should be credited | Castro: Tendered payment covers amounts through Jan 9, 2015; no other dispute over crediting | Court: Prejudgment interest merges into final judgment and accrues post-judgment interest under §55.03; tender credited against final amount; remanded for entry of corrected judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Cincinnati Equitable Ins. Co. v. Hawit, 933 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (interest on attorney’s fees accrues from date entitlement is fixed)
- Quality Engineered Installation, Inc. v. Higley S., Inc., 670 So. 2d 929 (Fla. 1996) (prejudgment interest accrues from entitlement date and merges into final judgment)
- Eastern Indus., Inc. v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 960 So. 2d 900 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (attorney-fee claims not exclusively governed by Rule 9.410)
- Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Herron, 828 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (same)
- Westport Recovery Corp. v. Batista, 965 So. 2d 1189 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (prejudgment interest merges into judgment and accrues post-judgment interest)