Hamel v. Reilly

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hamel v. Reilly

86 So. 3d 1144, 2012 WL 1364989, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 6184

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 20, 2012

DocketNos. 5D10-1252, 5D10-2536, 5D10-3213

StatusPublished

This text of 86 So. 3d 1144 (Hamel v. Reilly) 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

Hamel v. Reilly, 86 So. 3d 1144, 2012 WL 1364989, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 6184 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the summary final judgment in favor of the appellee, Diane Reilly, and the dismissal with prejudice in favor of the appellee, John Reilly, entered in this case in all respects except for the issue of costs. When summary judgment was granted to Ms. Reilly, the order indicated that as the prevailing party, she was “entitled to recover her taxable costs” in an amount to be later determined. Later, however, the court rendered an order saying that Ms. Reilly’s motion for fees and costs was denied in all respects. Both parties agree that Ms. Reilly is entitled to taxable costs as the prevailing party. See § 57.041(1), Fla. Stat. (2011).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment and order appealed from, but reverse and remand for assessment of taxable costs in favor of Ms. Reilly.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

MONACO, LAWSON and EVANDER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the summary final judgment in favor of the appellee, Diane Reilly, and the dismissal with prejudice in favor of the appellee, John Reilly, entered in this case in all respects except for the issue of costs. When summary judgment was granted to Ms. Reilly, the order indicated that as the prevailing party, she was “entitled to recover her taxable costs” in an amount to be later determined. Later, however, the court rendered an order saying that Ms. Reilly’s motion for fees and costs was denied in all respects. Both parties agree that Ms. Reilly is entitled to taxable costs as the prevailing party. See § 57.041(1), Fla. Stat. (2011).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment and order appealed from, but reverse and remand for assessment of taxable costs in favor of Ms. Reilly.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

MONACO, LAWSON and EVANDER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 So. 3d 1144, 2012 WL 1364989, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 6184, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hamel-v-reilly-fladistctapp-2012.