Farro v. Marion County Sheriff's Department

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Farro v. Marion County Sheriff's Department

729 So. 2d 503, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 4255, 1999 WL 261715

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 6, 1999

DocketNo. 98-2266

StatusPublished

This text of 729 So. 2d 503 (Farro v. Marion County Sheriff's Department) 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

Farro v. Marion County Sheriff's Department, 729 So. 2d 503, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 4255, 1999 WL 261715 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the issues appellant raises on appeal. On the cross-appeal, we reverse the award of taxable costs to appellant, because he did not prevail below. See Ardmore Farms v. Smith, 423 So.2d 1039 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Although the judge of compensation claims did not rule that the claimant was entitled to an award of attorney’s fees to [504]*504be paid by the employer/servicing agent, an award to which he would clearly not be entitled because he did not prevail below, we need not reach the issue of claimant’s entitlement to fees, because we regard the judge’s finding on fees as a reservation of jurisdiction to determine both entitlement and amount. Thus cross-appellant’s challenge thereto is a premature. See Sandcaribe, Inc. v. Llerandi, 432 So.2d 185 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, and REMANDED.

ERVIN, ALLEN and DAVIS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the issues appellant raises on appeal. On the cross-appeal, we reverse the award of taxable costs to appellant, because he did not prevail below. See Ardmore Farms v. Smith, 423 So.2d 1039 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Although the judge of compensation claims did not rule that the claimant was entitled to an award of attorney’s fees to [504]*504be paid by the employer/servicing agent, an award to which he would clearly not be entitled because he did not prevail below, we need not reach the issue of claimant’s entitlement to fees, because we regard the judge’s finding on fees as a reservation of jurisdiction to determine both entitlement and amount. Thus cross-appellant’s challenge thereto is a premature. See Sandcaribe, Inc. v. Llerandi, 432 So.2d 185 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, and REMANDED.

ERVIN, ALLEN and DAVIS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

729 So. 2d 503, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 4255, 1999 WL 261715, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/farro-v-marion-county-sheriffs-department-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack