ISLANDER BUILDING COMPANY v. Klaus

District Court of Appeal of Florida

ISLANDER BUILDING COMPANY v. Klaus

72 So. 3d 314, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 16736, 2011 WL 5008540

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 21, 2011

Docket2D10-4513

StatusPublished

This text of 72 So. 3d 314 (ISLANDER BUILDING COMPANY v. Klaus) 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

ISLANDER BUILDING COMPANY v. Klaus, 72 So. 3d 314, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 16736, 2011 WL 5008540 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

WALLACE, Judge.

Islander Building Company appeals a final judgment awarding damages against it and in favor of Bruno and Cheryl Klaus on their claim for breach of a construction contract against Islander. Islander argues under issue one on appeal that the circuit court erred in determining that the Klaus-es were entitled to them attorney’s fees under a fee provision in the construction contract. But in the final judgment, the circuit court reserved jurisdiction to determine the reasonable amount of the Klaus-es’ attorney’s fees and did not establish the amount of the fees to be awarded. Thus the final judgment is not a final appealable order on the issue of attorney’s fees, and this court lacks jurisdiction to address Islander’s arguments under issue one. See Ulrich v. Eaton Vance Distribs., Inc., 764 So.2d 731, 733 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (“[N]ot-withstanding the finality of the judgment as it relates to the underlying dispute, the attorney’s fee issue is not finally resolved or ripe for appellate review until both entitlement and amount have been determined.”).

Under issue two, Islander argues that the circuit court abused its discretion in admitting the testimony of the Klauses’ expert in accounting and construction on various matters at trial. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that Islander’s arguments under issue two are without merit and do not warrant further discussion.

Accordingly, we dismiss Islander’s appeal from the final judgment to the extent Islander challenges the circuit court’s determination of the Klauses’ entitlement to attorney’s fees under the construction contract. Islander may again raise its entitlement arguments on appeal from a final order awarding the Klauses their attorney’s fees. We affirm the final judgment in all other respects.

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part.

WHATLEY and NORTHCUTT, JJ., Concur.

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

WALLACE, Judge.

Islander Building Company appeals a final judgment awarding damages against it and in favor of Bruno and Cheryl Klaus on their claim for breach of a construction contract against Islander. Islander argues under issue one on appeal that the circuit court erred in determining that the Klaus-es were entitled to them attorney’s fees under a fee provision in the construction contract. But in the final judgment, the circuit court reserved jurisdiction to determine the reasonable amount of the Klaus-es’ attorney’s fees and did not establish the amount of the fees to be awarded. Thus the final judgment is not a final appealable order on the issue of attorney’s fees, and this court lacks jurisdiction to address Islander’s arguments under issue one. See Ulrich v. Eaton Vance Distribs., Inc., 764 So.2d 731, 733 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (“[N]ot-withstanding the finality of the judgment as it relates to the underlying dispute, the attorney’s fee issue is not finally resolved or ripe for appellate review until both entitlement and amount have been determined.”).

Under issue two, Islander argues that the circuit court abused its discretion in admitting the testimony of the Klauses’ expert in accounting and construction on various matters at trial. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that Islander’s arguments under issue two are without merit and do not warrant further discussion.

Accordingly, we dismiss Islander’s appeal from the final judgment to the extent Islander challenges the circuit court’s determination of the Klauses’ entitlement to attorney’s fees under the construction contract. Islander may again raise its entitlement arguments on appeal from a final order awarding the Klauses their attorney’s fees. We affirm the final judgment in all other respects.

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part.

WHATLEY and NORTHCUTT, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 So. 3d 314, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 16736, 2011 WL 5008540, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/islander-building-company-v-klaus-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack