Metropolitan Dade County v. Cerezo

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Metropolitan Dade County v. Cerezo

774 So. 2d 1, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 4297, 1996 WL 195022

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 24, 1996

DocketNo. 95-2872

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 774 So. 2d 1 (Metropolitan Dade County v. Cerezo) 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

Metropolitan Dade County v. Cerezo, 774 So. 2d 1, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 4297, 1996 WL 195022 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the final judgment entered in favor of the appellee Carol Cerezo, plaintiff below. We write only to address the appellee’s motion to tax attorney’s fees pursuant to section 768.79, Florida Statutes (1989), and to note that we align ourselves with the First, Second, Fourth and Fifth District Courts of Appeal, and grant the appellee’s motion for appellate attorney’s fees and costs based on sections 768.79(1) and 59.46, Florida Statutes (1989). See Westfield Ins. Co. v. Mendolera, 647 So.2d 223 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Mark C. Arnold Constr. Co. v. National Lumber Brokers, Inc., 642 So.2d 576 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Schmidt v. Fortner, 629 So.2d 1036, 1043 n. 10 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Williams v. Brochu, 578 So.2d 491, 495 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). Thus, we remand the cause to the trial court to determine the appropriate amount of the award and enter a judgment awarding fees to appellee. See Pinellas County, Bd. of County Comm’rs v. Bettis, 659 So.2d 1365, 1367-68 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), rev. denied, 668 So.2d 602 (Fla. Jan. 29, 1996) (No. 86,636).

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the final judgment entered in favor of the appellee Carol Cerezo, plaintiff below. We write only to address the appellee’s motion to tax attorney’s fees pursuant to section 768.79, Florida Statutes (1989), and to note that we align ourselves with the First, Second, Fourth and Fifth District Courts of Appeal, and grant the appellee’s motion for appellate attorney’s fees and costs based on sections 768.79(1) and 59.46, Florida Statutes (1989). See Westfield Ins. Co. v. Mendolera, 647 So.2d 223 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Mark C. Arnold Constr. Co. v. National Lumber Brokers, Inc., 642 So.2d 576 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Schmidt v. Fortner, 629 So.2d 1036, 1043 n. 10 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Williams v. Brochu, 578 So.2d 491, 495 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). Thus, we remand the cause to the trial court to determine the appropriate amount of the award and enter a judgment awarding fees to appellee. See Pinellas County, Bd. of County Comm’rs v. Bettis, 659 So.2d 1365, 1367-68 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), rev. denied, 668 So.2d 602 (Fla. Jan. 29, 1996) (No. 86,636).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

774 So. 2d 1, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 4297, 1996 WL 195022, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/metropolitan-dade-county-v-cerezo-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack