250 So. 3d 835
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2018Background
- Underlying action dismissed for lack of prosecution on March 31, 2017; both parties then moved for entitlement to attorneys’ fees and costs.
- Trial court entered a First Order (Sept. 1, 2017) finding Yampol prevailing under Florida’s dual dismissal rule and reserving the fee amount for later determination.
- Turnberry moved for reconsideration, seeking vacatur of the First Order and a finding that Turnberry was the prevailing party entitled to fees.
- Trial court granted reconsideration and entered a Second Order (Nov. 17, 2017) finding Turnberry the prevailing party and denying Yampol entitlement to fees; the court did not set the amount of fees for Turnberry.
- Yampol appealed the Second Order as a final denial of his entitlement to attorneys’ fees; Turnberry moved to dismiss the appeal as premature because the trial court had not fixed the amount of fees awarded to Turnberry.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an order that grants one party entitlement to fees but does not set amount, while denying the other party entitlement, is an appealable final order | Yampol: The denial of his entitlement to fees is a final, appealable ruling; appeal is timely | Turnberry: The order is non-final because the court has not determined the fee amount for Turnberry; appeal should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction | The denial of Yampol’s entitlement is a final, appealable post-judgment order; dismissal of the appeal was denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Garcia v. Valladares, 99 So. 3d 518 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (order granting entitlement but reserving amount is non-final and non-appealable)
- BDO Seidman, LLP v. British Car Auctions, Inc., 789 So. 2d 1019 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (post-judgment orders denying attorney’s fees are final and appealable)
- Reliable Reprographics Blueprint & Supply, Inc. v. Florida Mango Office Park, Inc., 645 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (order denying fees is appealable where it disposes of entitlement and requires no further judicial labor)
- Clearwater Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Sampson, 336 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 1976) (an order after judgment that is dispositive of any question becomes a final post-decretal order)
- Gaccione v. Damiano, 35 So. 3d 1008 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (portion of order denying fees is appealable when dispositive of entitlement)
- Scott v. Women’s Med. Grp., P.A., 837 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (order denying fees is not final if the court intends further judicial labor on the fee issue)