Fazio v. City of Hollywood

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Fazio v. City of Hollywood

702 So. 2d 1370, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 14989, 1997 WL 791760

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 30, 1997

DocketNo. 97-2008

StatusPublished

This text of 702 So. 2d 1370 (Fazio v. City of Hollywood) 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

Fazio v. City of Hollywood, 702 So. 2d 1370, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 14989, 1997 WL 791760 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Vincent Fazio appeals an order of the judge of compensation claims awarding interest on attorney’s fees from February 5,1997, the date of the determination of the amount of the fees, rather than from October 16, 1996, the date of the determination of entitlement to fees. The question he raises on appeal is the identical question this court certified to the Florida Supreme Court as one of great public importance in Wells Fargo Armored, Serve. v. Lee, 692 So.2d 284 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), review granted, 699 So.2d 689 (Fla.1997). In that case we certified the following question:

Does the court s decision in Quality Engineered Installation, Inc. v. Higley South, Inc., 670 So.2d 929 (Fla.1996), extend to permit the accrual of prejudgment interest on attorney’s fees, authorized pursuant to the Workers’ Compensation Law, from the date entitlement to the fee is determined, when an amount for same has not yet been established?

The parties agree that the ultimate resolution of the certified question in Wells Fargo will govern this appeal as well. Until the supreme court acts, we are bound to follow our own decision in Wells Fargo, 692 So.2d at 285. (“We have been unable to find any legal basis for the award of prejudgment interest on fees in workers’ compensation cases before the amount of the fee has been established.”).

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

PER CURIAM.

Vincent Fazio appeals an order of the judge of compensation claims awarding interest on attorney’s fees from February 5,1997, the date of the determination of the amount of the fees, rather than from October 16, 1996, the date of the determination of entitlement to fees. The question he raises on appeal is the identical question this court certified to the Florida Supreme Court as one of great public importance in Wells Fargo Armored, Serve. v. Lee, 692 So.2d 284 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), review granted, 699 So.2d 689 (Fla.1997). In that case we certified the following question:

Does the court s decision in Quality Engineered Installation, Inc. v. Higley South, Inc., 670 So.2d 929 (Fla.1996), extend to permit the accrual of prejudgment interest on attorney’s fees, authorized pursuant to the Workers’ Compensation Law, from the date entitlement to the fee is determined, when an amount for same has not yet been established?

The parties agree that the ultimate resolution of the certified question in Wells Fargo will govern this appeal as well. Until the supreme court acts, we are bound to follow our own decision in Wells Fargo, 692 So.2d at 285. (“We have been unable to find any legal basis for the award of prejudgment interest on fees in workers’ compensation cases before the amount of the fee has been established.”).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

702 So. 2d 1370, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 14989, 1997 WL 791760, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fazio-v-city-of-hollywood-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack