OLESH v. Greenberg

District Court of Appeal of Florida

OLESH v. Greenberg

9 So. 3d 44, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 3895, 2009 WL 559921

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 6, 2009

Docket5D08-2418

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 9 So. 3d 44 (OLESH v. Greenberg) 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

OLESH v. Greenberg, 9 So. 3d 44, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 3895, 2009 WL 559921 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORFINGER, J.

Alvin B. Olesh appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion for relief from judgment filed under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b). Olesh’s motion sought relief from an attorney’s fees award entered against him, and in favor of Patricia Greenberg and her former attorney, Mark P. Lang. We reverse.

On Greenberg’s motion, the trial court granted a summary final judgment against Olesh. On appeal, this Court reversed the summary judgment on the ground that the trial court should have allowed Olesh to offer new evidence in support of his motion for rehearing and amend his complaint following discharge of his counsel after the hearing on the motion for summary judgment. See Olesh v. Greenberg, 978 So.2d 238 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). After the summary final judgment was entered, but while the appeal was pending, Greenberg filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs against Olesh. The motion was based on the trial court’s sua sponte determination at the hearing on Greenberg’s motion for summary judgment that Olesh was liable for Greenberg’s attorney’s fees under section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2007), and Olesh’s failure to accept a proposal for settlement served on him pursuant to section 768.79, Florida Statutes (2007), and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442. The trial court granted Greenberg’s motion and entered a final judgment against Olesh in the amount of $115,423, including fees and costs.

Olesh, who was unrepresented at the time, did not appeal that judgment. However, several days after this Court reversed the summary judgment against him (and less than one year after its entry), Olesh filed a rule 1.540(b) motion for relief from judgment, seeking to have the trial court set aside the fee award. Olesh argued that the fee judgment should be vacated because the underlying summary final judgment had been reversed. Following a hearing, the trial court denied the motion and this appeal followed.

Under the circumstances of this case, we agree that this matter should be reversed and remanded for the trial court to reconsider the attorney’s fee award in light of our prior decision. See Fla. R. Civ. P. *46 1.540(b). Our decision is without prejudice to Greenberg again seeking attorney’s fees if her proposal for settlement entitles her to attorney’s fees, or to fees under section 57.105 if adequately supported by findings of fact.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

GRIFFIN and COHEN, JJ., concur.

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

ORFINGER, J.

Alvin B. Olesh appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion for relief from judgment filed under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b). Olesh’s motion sought relief from an attorney’s fees award entered against him, and in favor of Patricia Greenberg and her former attorney, Mark P. Lang. We reverse.

On Greenberg’s motion, the trial court granted a summary final judgment against Olesh. On appeal, this Court reversed the summary judgment on the ground that the trial court should have allowed Olesh to offer new evidence in support of his motion for rehearing and amend his complaint following discharge of his counsel after the hearing on the motion for summary judgment. See Olesh v. Greenberg, 978 So.2d 238 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). After the summary final judgment was entered, but while the appeal was pending, Greenberg filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs against Olesh. The motion was based on the trial court’s sua sponte determination at the hearing on Greenberg’s motion for summary judgment that Olesh was liable for Greenberg’s attorney’s fees under section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2007), and Olesh’s failure to accept a proposal for settlement served on him pursuant to section 768.79, Florida Statutes (2007), and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442. The trial court granted Greenberg’s motion and entered a final judgment against Olesh in the amount of $115,423, including fees and costs.

Olesh, who was unrepresented at the time, did not appeal that judgment. However, several days after this Court reversed the summary judgment against him (and less than one year after its entry), Olesh filed a rule 1.540(b) motion for relief from judgment, seeking to have the trial court set aside the fee award. Olesh argued that the fee judgment should be vacated because the underlying summary final judgment had been reversed. Following a hearing, the trial court denied the motion and this appeal followed.

Under the circumstances of this case, we agree that this matter should be reversed and remanded for the trial court to reconsider the attorney’s fee award in light of our prior decision. See Fla. R. Civ. P. *46 1.540(b). Our decision is without prejudice to Greenberg again seeking attorney’s fees if her proposal for settlement entitles her to attorney’s fees, or to fees under section 57.105 if adequately supported by findings of fact.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

GRIFFIN and COHEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 So. 3d 44, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 3895, 2009 WL 559921, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/olesh-v-greenberg-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack