Bevan v. Cowart

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bevan v. Cowart

916 So. 2d 822, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 6613, 2005 WL 1047283

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 6, 2005

DocketNo. 2D04-1744

StatusPublished

This text of 916 So. 2d 822 (Bevan v. Cowart) 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

Bevan v. Cowart, 916 So. 2d 822, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 6613, 2005 WL 1047283 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

DANAHY, PAUL W., Senior Judge.

We affirm without comment the trial court’s order enjoining Jane Elizabeth Be-van from filing additional petitions for repeat violence injunctions against Claudia Cowart without prior court approval but write to address the issue of appellate attorney’s fees. “A litigant who wants to pursue a claim for appellate attorney’s fees is required to file a motion in the appellate court under [Florida Rule of Appellate [823]*823Procedure] 9.400(b), stating the legal basis for the claim.” Rados v. Rados, 791 So.2d 1130, 1132 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (citing United Servs. Auto. Ass’n v. Phillips, 775 So.2d 921 (Fla.2000)). Cowart requested attorney’s fees in her answer brief. However, she failed to file a separate motion in accordance with rule 9.400(b). Accordingly, we deny Cowart’s request for attorney’s fees.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.

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

DANAHY, PAUL W., Senior Judge.

We affirm without comment the trial court’s order enjoining Jane Elizabeth Be-van from filing additional petitions for repeat violence injunctions against Claudia Cowart without prior court approval but write to address the issue of appellate attorney’s fees. “A litigant who wants to pursue a claim for appellate attorney’s fees is required to file a motion in the appellate court under [Florida Rule of Appellate [823]*823Procedure] 9.400(b), stating the legal basis for the claim.” Rados v. Rados, 791 So.2d 1130, 1132 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (citing United Servs. Auto. Ass’n v. Phillips, 775 So.2d 921 (Fla.2000)). Cowart requested attorney’s fees in her answer brief. However, she failed to file a separate motion in accordance with rule 9.400(b). Accordingly, we deny Cowart’s request for attorney’s fees.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

916 So. 2d 822, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 6613, 2005 WL 1047283, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bevan-v-cowart-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack