Casavan v. Land O'Lakes Realty, Inc.

526 So. 2d 215, 1988 WL 57750
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJune 9, 1988
Docket88-128
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 526 So. 2d 215 (Casavan v. Land O'Lakes Realty, 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
Casavan v. Land O'Lakes Realty, Inc., 526 So. 2d 215, 1988 WL 57750 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Opinion

526 So.2d 215 (1988)

George A. CASAVAN, et al., Appellants/Cross-Appellees,
v.
LAND O'LAKES REALTY, INC. OF LEESBURG, et al., Appellees/Cross-Appellants.

No. 88-128.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

June 9, 1988.

Jackson O. Brownlee, Tavares, for appellants/cross-appellees.

Robert L. Appleget, Jr., Ocala, for Appellees/Cross-Appellants.

ON MOTION TO RELINQUISH JURISDICTION

ORFINGER, Judge.

A motion has been filed requesting that we relinquish jurisdiction to the trial court so that it may consider and act upon a motion for the assessment of attorney's fees. The trial court entered an order stating that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion because of the pending appeal from the previously entered final judgment. We deny the motion as moot because the trial court has jurisdiction to consider a motion for assessment of attorney's fees subsequent to the entry of a final judgment, even after a notice of appeal from that judgment has been filed.

We agree with the holding of Bernstein v. Berrin, 516 So.2d 1042 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), that the test to determine loss of jurisdiction is not whether the trial court is proceeding in matters related to the final judgment, but rather the proper *216 test is whether the trial court is proceeding in a matter which affects the subject matter on appeal. See also Bailey v. Bailey, 392 So.2d 49 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Cf. Campbell v. Campbell, 436 So.2d 374 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). Since an order awarding attorney's fees after entry of final judgment is a final appealable order, Bernstein, supra; Morand v. Stoneburner, 516 So.2d 270 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987), there is no reason why an appeal of the final judgment should divest the trial court of jurisdiction to later rule on the request for attorney's fees.

MOTION DENIED as MOOT.

SHARP, C.J., and DANIEL, J., concur.

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

Related

Department of Revenue Ex Rel. Simmons v. Wardlaw
25 So. 3d 80 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2009)
Reynolds v. Colonial Bank
874 So. 2d 497 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 2003)
Mendoza v. Mendoza
842 So. 2d 1020 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2003)
Dolin v. Dolin
654 So. 2d 223 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)
Kittel-Glass v. Oceans Four Condominium Ass'n
648 So. 2d 827 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)
Hanley v. Kajak
647 So. 2d 916 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)
Randolph v. Randolph
618 So. 2d 770 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1993)
McGurn v. Scott
596 So. 2d 1042 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1992)
Engelman v. Newman
578 So. 2d 1148 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
526 So. 2d 215, 1988 WL 57750, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/casavan-v-land-olakes-realty-inc-fladistctapp-1988.