LOUIS CARAMBOT v. LIZET MONCION

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMarch 22, 2023
Docket22-0850
StatusPublished

This text of LOUIS CARAMBOT v. LIZET MONCION (LOUIS CARAMBOT v. LIZET MONCION) 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
LOUIS CARAMBOT v. LIZET MONCION, (Fla. Ct. App. 2023).

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed March 22, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D22-0850 Lower Tribunal No. 19-13416 CC ________________

Louis Carambot, et al., Appellants,

vs.

Lizet Moncion, et al., Appellees.

An appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Chiaka Ihekwaba, Judge.

Victor K. Rones, P.A. and Victor K. Rones, for appellants.

No appearance for appellees. 1

Before EMAS, LOGUE, and MILLER, JJ.

1 By order of the court, appellees were precluded from filing an answer brief for failure to timely file same. MILLER, J.

In this landlord-tenant dispute, appellants challenge an amended final

judgment rendered following a nonjury trial. In the judgment, the trial court

denied their motion for attorney’s fees and costs, ostensibly on the basis they

were not prevailing parties because their recovery was limited to the

negligible amount of claimed damages conceded by appellees at the trial.

Given the broad discretion afforded to the trial court in determining which

party prevailed on the significant issues in the litigation, we decline to disturb

the denial of fees. See Skylink Jets, Inc. v. Klukan, 308 So. 3d 1048, 1051

(Fla. 4th DCA 2020); Sidlow v. Bowles Custom Pool & Spas, Inc., 32 So. 3d

722, 722 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010); Prosperi v. Code, Inc., 626 So. 2d 1360, 1363

(Fla. 1993). An award of costs, however, was required because appellants

recovered judgment. See § 57.041(1), Fla. Stat. (2021) (“The party

recovering judgment shall recover all his or her legal costs and charges

which shall be included in the judgment . . . .”); Arellano v. Bisson, 761 So.

2d 365, 366 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (noting that, under section 57.041, Florida

Statutes, entitlement to costs “is conditioned solely on recovering a

judgment”); Governing Bd. of St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist. v. Lake

Pickett Ltd., 543 So. 2d 883, 884 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (“[S]ection 57.041

mandates that every party who recovers a judgment in a legal proceeding is

2 entitled as a matter of right to recover lawful court costs and that a trial judge

has no discretion under that statute to deny court costs to the party

recovering judgment.”); First Protective Ins. Co. v. Featherston, 978 So. 2d

881, 883 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (same). Accordingly, we reverse and remand

for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Related

FIRST PROTECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY v. Featherston
978 So. 2d 881 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2008)
Sidlow v. Bowles Custom Pool & Spas, Inc.
32 So. 3d 722 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2010)
Prosperi v. Code, Inc.
626 So. 2d 1360 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1993)
Arellano v. Bisson
761 So. 2d 365 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2000)
Governing Bd. of St. Johns River Water Management Dist. v. Lake Pickett Ltd.
543 So. 2d 883 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
LOUIS CARAMBOT v. LIZET MONCION, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/louis-carambot-v-lizet-moncion-fladistctapp-2023.