Eager v. Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority

605 So. 2d 883, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 8621, 1992 WL 191602
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedAugust 11, 1992
DocketNo. 92-222
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 605 So. 2d 883 (Eager v. Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority) 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
Eager v. Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority, 605 So. 2d 883, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 8621, 1992 WL 191602 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

George W. Eager and Calusa Camp Resort appeal the entry of a final order dismissing their application for attorney’s fees as untimely. We reverse the order under review upon our finding that the application was timely filed.

Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority sought system development fees from appellants, George W. Eager and Calusa Camp Resort. Following an administrative hearing, an order was issued in the Authority’s favor. This court reversed that decision and filed an opinion, July 29,1991, finding no system development fees could be collected. Eager v. Florida Keys Aqueduct Auth., 580 So.2d 771 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 591 So.2d 181 (Fla.1991). Appellants claim the mandate making them the prevailing parties was received by counsel July 30, 1991, and their application for attorney’s fees as the prevailing parties filed September 26, 1991 was therefore timely. The Florida Division of Administrative Hearings acknowledged receipt of the application September 30, 1991. The Division treated the application as a new case and assigned a new case number. Thereafter, the Authority requested dismissal of the application for attorney’s fees as untimely. Subsequently, a hearing officer entered a final order, dismissing the application for attorney’s fees.

Both section 57.111(4)(b)(2), Florida Statutes, 19911 and Rule 221-6.0352 require a petition for fees to be made within 60 days of a small business becoming a prevailing party.3 Further, Florida Administrative Code Rule 221-6.0024 provides for five additional days when service is by mail. The motion for fees was made to the agency within sixty-three days after the issuance of this court’s mandate. Considering the additional five days permitted by the Code’s own rule, the fees request should not have been dismissed as untimely.

Accordingly, the order under review is reversed and the cause remanded.

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

Related

Beacon Finance, Inc. v. Department of Insurance, State of Florida
656 So. 2d 197 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)
State, Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services v. South Beach Pharmacy, Inc.
635 So. 2d 117 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
605 So. 2d 883, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 8621, 1992 WL 191602, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eager-v-florida-keys-aqueduct-authority-fladistctapp-1992.