Colombo v. Puig

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Colombo v. Puig

793 So. 2d 1080, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 11117, 2001 WL 883440

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 8, 2001

DocketNo. 3D01-163

StatusPublished

This text of 793 So. 2d 1080 (Colombo v. Puig) 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

Colombo v. Puig, 793 So. 2d 1080, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 11117, 2001 WL 883440 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the fee award in the final judgment, finding that the trial court committed no abuse of discretion in arriving at the awarded amount, and applied the correct legal standard. See Kuhnlein v. Dep’t of Revenue, 662 So.2d 309 (Fla.1995).

However, we reverse paragraph 10 of the final judgment that awards costs for the expert’s testimony. The costs were awarded despite a settlement agreement wherein appellee specifically waived the right to recover any additional costs. Settlement agreements are construed according to principles of contract law, De Cespedes v. Bolanos, 711 So.2d 216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), and where, as here, there is [1081]*1081an express provision in a settlement agreement, the courts may not modify or construe those terms. Sec. Ins. of Hartford v. Puig, 728 So.2d 292 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). In this case, neither side questioned the reasonableness of the costs incurred in the expert’s testimony or the expert’s entitlement to compensation. However, in view of the settlement agreement provision waiving same, this cost must be borne by the appellee and/or by the appellee’s law firm. Therefore, the award in paragraph 10 must be reversed.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the fee award in the final judgment, finding that the trial court committed no abuse of discretion in arriving at the awarded amount, and applied the correct legal standard. See Kuhnlein v. Dep’t of Revenue, 662 So.2d 309 (Fla.1995).

However, we reverse paragraph 10 of the final judgment that awards costs for the expert’s testimony. The costs were awarded despite a settlement agreement wherein appellee specifically waived the right to recover any additional costs. Settlement agreements are construed according to principles of contract law, De Cespedes v. Bolanos, 711 So.2d 216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), and where, as here, there is [1081]*1081an express provision in a settlement agreement, the courts may not modify or construe those terms. Sec. Ins. of Hartford v. Puig, 728 So.2d 292 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). In this case, neither side questioned the reasonableness of the costs incurred in the expert’s testimony or the expert’s entitlement to compensation. However, in view of the settlement agreement provision waiving same, this cost must be borne by the appellee and/or by the appellee’s law firm. Therefore, the award in paragraph 10 must be reversed.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

793 So. 2d 1080, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 11117, 2001 WL 883440, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/colombo-v-puig-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack