Morrison v. United States Ex Rel. Farm Service Agency

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Morrison v. United States Ex Rel. Farm Service Agency

73 So. 3d 336, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 17227, 2011 WL 5120117

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 31, 2011

Docket1D10-5305

StatusPublished

This text of 73 So. 3d 336 (Morrison v. United States Ex Rel. Farm Service Agency) 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

Morrison v. United States Ex Rel. Farm Service Agency, 73 So. 3d 336, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 17227, 2011 WL 5120117 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

THOMAS, J.,

concurring.

In this appeal from the trial court’s “Final Judgment of Foreclosure and Final Judgment Dismissing Counterclaim with Prejudice,” entered on remand from our decision in United States v. Morrison, 28 So.3d 94 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009), rev. denied, 43 So.3d 44 (Fla.2010) (table), appellants raise two points seeking reversal of the trial court’s award of attorneys’ fees to appellee. We AFFIRM without comment the trial court’s award of attorneys’ fees to appellee arising from the final judgment of foreclosure. However, because the trial court reserved jurisdiction to determine the distinctly separate amount of attorneys’ fees awarded to appellee due to the dismissal of appellants’ counterclaim, we lack jurisdiction to consider their challenge of the award. Consequently, that portion of appellants’ appeal is DISMISSED. See Zampell Refractories, Inc. v. Welch, 61 So.3d 1160, 1160 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Zuberer v. Zuberer, 28 So.3d 993, 993-94 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). See also Carlin v. Carlin, 895 So.2d 532, 532 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (holding that a finding of entitlement to attorney’s fees without setting the amount is a non-final, non-appealable ruling).

I concur, but write to acknowledge Appellants’ argument that under section 559.77(2), Florida Statutes, the issue of attorney’s fees requires a determination of whether Appellants’ counterclaim “fail[ed] to raise a justiciable issue of law or fact[.]” § 559.77(2), Fla. Stat. This argument may be meritorious, and I respectfully recommend that the trial court consider on remand whether any attorney’s fees should be imposed here. See generally Langford v. Ferrera, 823 So.2d 795 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (discussing similar standard for determining fees under previous version of section 57.105, Florida Statutes).

WETHERELL and SWANSON, JJ., concur; THOMAS, J., concurring vrith written opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

THOMAS, J.,

concurring.

In this appeal from the trial court’s “Final Judgment of Foreclosure and Final Judgment Dismissing Counterclaim with Prejudice,” entered on remand from our decision in United States v. Morrison, 28 So.3d 94 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009), rev. denied, 43 So.3d 44 (Fla.2010) (table), appellants raise two points seeking reversal of the trial court’s award of attorneys’ fees to appellee. We AFFIRM without comment the trial court’s award of attorneys’ fees to appellee arising from the final judgment of foreclosure. However, because the trial court reserved jurisdiction to determine the distinctly separate amount of attorneys’ fees awarded to appellee due to the dismissal of appellants’ counterclaim, we lack jurisdiction to consider their challenge of the award. Consequently, that portion of appellants’ appeal is DISMISSED. See Zampell Refractories, Inc. v. Welch, 61 So.3d 1160, 1160 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Zuberer v. Zuberer, 28 So.3d 993, 993-94 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). See also Carlin v. Carlin, 895 So.2d 532, 532 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (holding that a finding of entitlement to attorney’s fees without setting the amount is a non-final, non-appealable ruling).

I concur, but write to acknowledge Appellants’ argument that under section 559.77(2), Florida Statutes, the issue of attorney’s fees requires a determination of whether Appellants’ counterclaim “fail[ed] to raise a justiciable issue of law or fact[.]” § 559.77(2), Fla. Stat. This argument may be meritorious, and I respectfully recommend that the trial court consider on remand whether any attorney’s fees should be imposed here. See generally Langford v. Ferrera, 823 So.2d 795 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (discussing similar standard for determining fees under previous version of section 57.105, Florida Statutes).

WETHERELL and SWANSON, JJ., concur; THOMAS, J., concurring vrith written opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 So. 3d 336, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 17227, 2011 WL 5120117, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morrison-v-united-states-ex-rel-farm-service-agency-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack