Motter Roofing, Inc. v. Leibowitz

833 So. 2d 788, 2002 WL 386118
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMarch 13, 2002
Docket3D01-2601
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 833 So. 2d 788 (Motter Roofing, Inc. v. Leibowitz) 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
Motter Roofing, Inc. v. Leibowitz, 833 So. 2d 788, 2002 WL 386118 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Opinion

833 So.2d 788 (2002)

MOTTER ROOFING, INC., Petitioner,
v.
Brian LEIBOWITZ, and Terry Leibowitz, his wife, Respondents.

No. 3D01-2601.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 13, 2002.

*789 H. Hugh McConnell, Coral Gables, for appellant.

Randy D. Ellison (West Palm Beach), for appellees.

Before JORGENSON, GERSTEN, and SORONDO, JJ.

CONFESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the order denying appellate attorney's fees based upon the respondent's proper confession of error. Section 768.79(1), Florida Statutes (2001), provides for mandatory recovery of reasonable costs and attorney's fees by a plaintiff who has prevailed upon the merits, providing the plaintiff has complied with the requirements of the statute. See Hartley v. Guetzloe, 712 So.2d 817 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998).

This Court, along with all district courts in Florida, has ruled that Section 768.79 also applies to fees incurred on appeal. See Lantigua v. Lopes, 696 So.2d 532 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Mark C. Arnold Constr. Co. v. Nat'l Lumber Brokers, Inc., 642 So.2d 576 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Westfield Ins. Co. v. Mendolera, 647 So.2d 223 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Schmidt v. Fortner, 629 So.2d 1036 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Williams v. Brochu, 578 So.2d 491 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). Under Sections 768.79 and 59.46, Florida Statutes (2001), attorney's fees are not discretionary. See Noble v. Martin Mem'l Hosp. Ass'n, Inc., 710 So.2d 567 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), review denied, 718 So.2d 169 (Fla.1998). Thus, the circuit court, sitting in its appellate capacity, departed from the essential requirements of law by denying the petitioner's request for appellate attorney's fees. See Disney v. Vaughen, 804 So.2d 581 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).

Accordingly, we grant the petition for certiorari and reverse that portion of the order pertaining to appellate attorney's fees. This case is remanded for determination of fees for all appellate proceedings.

Certiorari granted; reversed in part and remanded.

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

Related

United Automobile Insurance Co. v. Comprehensive Health Center
173 So. 3d 1061 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2015)
Arango v. United Auto. Ins. Co.
901 So. 2d 320 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
833 So. 2d 788, 2002 WL 386118, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/motter-roofing-inc-v-leibowitz-fladistctapp-2002.