Alter v. Florida Pools of Central Florida, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Alter v. Florida Pools of Central Florida, Inc.

758 So. 2d 1262, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 6773, 2000 WL 707184

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 1, 2000

DocketNo. 5D99-1168

StatusPublished

This text of 758 So. 2d 1262 (Alter v. Florida Pools of Central Florida, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alter v. Florida Pools of Central Florida, Inc., 758 So. 2d 1262, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 6773, 2000 WL 707184 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

COBB, J.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING AND CLARIFICATION

The appellee, Florida Pools of Central Florida, Inc., prevailed in this appeal via a per curiam affirmance filed on November 23, 1999. Pending at that time was a motion filed by Florida Pools on August 23 seeking attorney fees on the basis of a contractual provision. Unfortunately, the motion was misfiled; although it appears in the clerk’s computer, the hard copy was not in the court file considered by the panel. As a result, the motion was not considered and disposed of at the time of the per curiam opinion. On December 10, 1999 the mandate issued. The term of court ended as of January 11, 2000, with no motion to withdraw the mandate having been filed in the interim.

On March 1, 2000, a duplicate of Florida Pool’s motion for attorney’s fees was filed and was denied by the panel on the basis that the term of court had expired in January. This was erroneous and accordingly we grant rehearing to correct the error. In Judges of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit v. Janovitz, 635 So.2d 19 (Fla.1994), the supreme court stated that an appellate court has jurisdiction under such circumstances to enter an order assessing appellate attorney’s fees assuming that a timely motion had been filed seeking such fees.

REHEARING GRANTED; MOTION FOR APPELLATE ATTORNEY’S FEES GRANTED.

ANTOON, C.J., and DAUKSCH, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

COBB, J.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING AND CLARIFICATION

The appellee, Florida Pools of Central Florida, Inc., prevailed in this appeal via a per curiam affirmance filed on November 23, 1999. Pending at that time was a motion filed by Florida Pools on August 23 seeking attorney fees on the basis of a contractual provision. Unfortunately, the motion was misfiled; although it appears in the clerk’s computer, the hard copy was not in the court file considered by the panel. As a result, the motion was not considered and disposed of at the time of the per curiam opinion. On December 10, 1999 the mandate issued. The term of court ended as of January 11, 2000, with no motion to withdraw the mandate having been filed in the interim.

On March 1, 2000, a duplicate of Florida Pool’s motion for attorney’s fees was filed and was denied by the panel on the basis that the term of court had expired in January. This was erroneous and accordingly we grant rehearing to correct the error. In Judges of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit v. Janovitz, 635 So.2d 19 (Fla.1994), the supreme court stated that an appellate court has jurisdiction under such circumstances to enter an order assessing appellate attorney’s fees assuming that a timely motion had been filed seeking such fees.

REHEARING GRANTED; MOTION FOR APPELLATE ATTORNEY’S FEES GRANTED.

ANTOON, C.J., and DAUKSCH, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

758 So. 2d 1262, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 6773, 2000 WL 707184, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alter-v-florida-pools-of-central-florida-inc-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack