Mark Arnold Constr. v. Nat'l Lumber

642 So. 2d 576, 1994 WL 419593
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedAugust 12, 1994
Docket93-1480
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 642 So. 2d 576 (Mark Arnold Constr. v. Nat'l Lumber) 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
Mark Arnold Constr. v. Nat'l Lumber, 642 So. 2d 576, 1994 WL 419593 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Opinion

642 So.2d 576 (1994)

MARK C. ARNOLD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Appellant/Cross-Appellee,
v.
NATIONAL LUMBER BROKERS, INC., Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

No. 93-1480.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

August 12, 1994.

Charles Evans Davis, Orlando, for appellant/cross-appellee.

Ernest J. Myers of Moody, Salzman & Robertson, Gainesville, for appellee/cross-appellant.

PER CURIAM.

ORDER ON APPELLEE'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES

In accordance with section 768.79, Florida Statutes, the appellee (plaintiff below) served a pretrial demand for judgment in the amount of $50,000, which the appellant refused. A judgment in the amount of $176,715.00 was entered in the trial court on a jury verdict in favor of the appellee.[1] The trial court also awarded fees and costs because the judgment was "at least 25 percent greater than the offer." § 768.79(1), Fla. Stat. (1993).

We align ourselves with the Fourth[2] and Fifth[3] District Courts of Appeal in granting, on the same grounds, the appellee's motion for an award of reasonable costs and attorney's fees incurred in successfully defending the judgment on appeal. § 768.79, Fla. Stat. (1993). Pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate *577 Procedure 9.400, we remand for the trial court to determine the appropriate amount of the award.

BOOTH, ALLEN and BENTON, JJ., concur.

NOTES

[1] The trial court's judgment was affirmed per curiam in Mark C. Arnold Construction Company v. National Lumber Brokers, Inc., 641 So.2d 868 (1994).

[2] Schmidt v. Fortner, 629 So.2d 1036, 1043 n. 10 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).

[3] Williams v. Brochu, 578 So.2d 491, 495 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991).

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

Related

AMISUB (AMERICAN HOSP.) INC. v. Hernandez
817 So. 2d 870 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)
Motter Roofing, Inc. v. Leibowitz
833 So. 2d 788 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)
Respiratory Care v. Murray D. Shear, Pa
715 So. 2d 1054 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)
Lantigua v. Lopes
696 So. 2d 532 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)
Metropolitan Dade County v. Cerezo
774 So. 2d 1 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)
Westfield Ins. Co. v. Mendolera
647 So. 2d 223 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
642 So. 2d 576, 1994 WL 419593, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mark-arnold-constr-v-natl-lumber-fladistctapp-1994.