Capital Bank v. MVB, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Capital Bank v. MVB, Inc.

683 So. 2d 1175, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 13141, 1996 WL 724293

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 18, 1996

DocketNo. 95-2683

StatusPublished

This text of 683 So. 2d 1175 (Capital Bank v. MVB, 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

Capital Bank v. MVB, Inc., 683 So. 2d 1175, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 13141, 1996 WL 724293 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Capital Bank appeals an order discharging a civil supersedeas bond following affirmance of the judgment. Capital Bank v. MVB, Inc., 644 So.2d 515 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994), review denied, 654 So.2d 918 (Fla.1995). We reverse. The trial court erred in discharging the bond before the attorney’s fee award was finalized:¹ the final judgment reserved jurisdiction to award attorney’s fees and the bond provisions expressly condition discharge upon the payment of such fees. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.310(c)(2), 9.900(h). Cf. Finst Dev., Inc. v. Bemaor, 449 So.2d 290 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)(eourt ordered party to post separate bond for attorney’s fee award where, apparently, the bond was not conditioned upon payment of fees); City of Coral Gables v. Geary, 398 So.2d 479 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)(where bond did not contain attorney’s fee provision surety not liable). Therefore, Capital remained entitled to the bond’s protection. To hold otherwise would render the bond’s express language meaningless. The bond provision provides for “costs, interest and attorneys’ fees, and damages for delay in the event ... said judgment is affirmed.” This language demonstrates that fees are subsumed in the matter the bond was intended to protect. Accordingly, we reverse the order and remand for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

Capital Bank appeals an order discharging a civil supersedeas bond following affirmance of the judgment. Capital Bank v. MVB, Inc., 644 So.2d 515 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994), review denied, 654 So.2d 918 (Fla.1995). We reverse. The trial court erred in discharging the bond before the attorney’s fee award was finalized:¹ the final judgment reserved jurisdiction to award attorney’s fees and the bond provisions expressly condition discharge upon the payment of such fees. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.310(c)(2), 9.900(h). Cf. Finst Dev., Inc. v. Bemaor, 449 So.2d 290 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)(eourt ordered party to post separate bond for attorney’s fee award where, apparently, the bond was not conditioned upon payment of fees); City of Coral Gables v. Geary, 398 So.2d 479 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)(where bond did not contain attorney’s fee provision surety not liable). Therefore, Capital remained entitled to the bond’s protection. To hold otherwise would render the bond’s express language meaningless. The bond provision provides for “costs, interest and attorneys’ fees, and damages for delay in the event ... said judgment is affirmed.” This language demonstrates that fees are subsumed in the matter the bond was intended to protect. Accordingly, we reverse the order and remand for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

683 So. 2d 1175, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 13141, 1996 WL 724293, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/capital-bank-v-mvb-inc-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack