Ice Legal, P.A. v. U.S. Bank National Associaton, etc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ice Legal, P.A. v. U.S. Bank National Associaton, etc.

182 So. 3d 858, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 267, 2016 WL 67381

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 6, 2016

Docket4D14-1484 and 4D14-2358

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 182 So. 3d 858 (Ice Legal, P.A. v. U.S. Bank National Associaton, etc.) 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

Ice Legal, P.A. v. U.S. Bank National Associaton, etc., 182 So. 3d 858, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 267, 2016 WL 67381 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this foreclosure proceeding, the trial court set the case for trial after the defendant homeowner’s attorney had requested a continuance; however, he did not appear on the continued date for trial, and the case had to be continued again. The trial court entered an order requiring the “defense” to compensate the plaintiff bank for *859 the travel costs of its witness; who had appeared, ready for trial. The homeowner filed a motion to strike the “sanctions.” Another trial judge set the amount of the costs at $714.50 and granted an extension for the homeowner to pay, not including defense counsel in the order. Later, after a final judgment of foreclosure was entered, another successor trial judge held both the defense counsel and the homeowner in contempt for failure to pay the travel costs pursuant to the order. The homeowner and defense counsel appeal, challenging the order awarding the travel costs as well as the contempt order making the defense counsel jointly responsible.

We reverse the order of contempt against the law firm. The order setting the amount of sanctions was entered prior to the final judgment and became final upon the entry of the final judgment of foreclosure. See Alexopoulos v. Gordon Hargrove & James, P.A., 109 So.3d 248, 250 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013); Green v. Callahan, 664 So.2d 21, 23 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). After, the sanctions order became final, the successor trial judge was without authority to alter it by assessing the sanctions against defense- counsel and the homeowner.

We affirm the original sanctions order, however.' That order assessed costs against the homeowner caused by the last-minute continuance. The trial court has the authority to require the homeowner to pay for the costs of such continuances. See Dep’t of Children & Families v. M.G., 838 So.2d 703, 704 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).

Reversed in part; affirmed in part.

WARNER, CONNER, JJ., and LEVEY COHEN, MARDI, Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this foreclosure proceeding, the trial court set the case for trial after the defendant homeowner’s attorney had requested a continuance; however, he did not appear on the continued date for trial, and the case had to be continued again. The trial court entered an order requiring the “defense” to compensate the plaintiff bank for *859 the travel costs of its witness; who had appeared, ready for trial. The homeowner filed a motion to strike the “sanctions.” Another trial judge set the amount of the costs at $714.50 and granted an extension for the homeowner to pay, not including defense counsel in the order. Later, after a final judgment of foreclosure was entered, another successor trial judge held both the defense counsel and the homeowner in contempt for failure to pay the travel costs pursuant to the order. The homeowner and defense counsel appeal, challenging the order awarding the travel costs as well as the contempt order making the defense counsel jointly responsible.

We reverse the order of contempt against the law firm. The order setting the amount of sanctions was entered prior to the final judgment and became final upon the entry of the final judgment of foreclosure. See Alexopoulos v. Gordon Hargrove & James, P.A., 109 So.3d 248, 250 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013); Green v. Callahan, 664 So.2d 21, 23 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). After, the sanctions order became final, the successor trial judge was without authority to alter it by assessing the sanctions against defense- counsel and the homeowner.

We affirm the original sanctions order, however.' That order assessed costs against the homeowner caused by the last-minute continuance. The trial court has the authority to require the homeowner to pay for the costs of such continuances. See Dep’t of Children & Families v. M.G., 838 So.2d 703, 704 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).

Reversed in part; affirmed in part.

WARNER, CONNER, JJ., and LEVEY COHEN, MARDI, Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 So. 3d 858, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 267, 2016 WL 67381, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ice-legal-pa-v-us-bank-national-associaton-etc-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack