3003 INDIAN CREEK RR, LLC v. ALFREDO ARIAS

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: April 19, 2023
• Docket: 22-0721
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed April 19, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D22-721 Lower Tribunal No. 21-9136 ________________

3003 Indian Creek RR, LLC, Appellant,

vs.

Alfredo Arias, et al., Appellees.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Charles K. Johnson, Judge.

David J. Winker, P.A., and David J. Winker, for appellant.

Twig, Trade, & Tribunal, PLLC, and Morgan L. Weinstein (Fort Lauderdale), for appellees.

Before EMAS, HENDON and GORDO, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Kalb v. Nack Holding, LLC, 79 So. 3d 175, 176 (Fla. 3d

DCA 2012) (“[A] motion for attorney’s fees must be filed within thirty days of

entry of final judgment to permit a trial court to award such fees. The only

recognized exception to this requirement is when the trial court has

already, in the judgment, determined entitlement to attorney’s fees as part

of the relief granted to the prevailing party.”) (emphasis in original); Amerus

Life Ins. Co. v. Lait, 2 So. 3d 203, 207 (Fla. 2009) (“Once the trial court

determines that the prevailing party is entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs,

the losing party is aware that it is required to pay the fees and costs. At that

point, the concerns of prejudice and unfair surprise to the losing party are

eliminated, thus eliminating the need to apply the thirty-day time requirement

under [Florida Rule of Civil Procedure] 1.525.”); Ramle Int’l Corp. v. Greens

Condo. Ass’n, Inc., 32 So. 3d 647, 648 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (holding “the

prevailing party’s entitlement to attorneys’ fees had already been

determined, and the trial court merely reserved jurisdiction to determine the

amounts”); Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152

(Fla. 1979) (“Without a record of the trial proceedings, the appellate court

can not properly resolve the underlying factual issues so as to conclude that

the trial court’s judgment is not supported by the evidence or by an

alternative theory.”).