PARAVANT, INC. v. Langford

District Court of Appeal of Florida

PARAVANT, INC. v. Langford

79 So. 3d 75, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 20065, 2011 WL 6258826

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 16, 2011

Docket5D10-3894

StatusPublished

This text of 79 So. 3d 75 (PARAVANT, INC. v. Langford) 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

PARAVANT, INC. v. Langford, 79 So. 3d 75, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 20065, 2011 WL 6258826 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Paravant, Inc. and Paravant Computer Systems, Inc. appeal a cost judgment in favor of William Langford, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support the costs as to three of Langford’s experts. See, e.g., Elder v. Islam, 869 So.2d 600, 602-03 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (recognizing a party seeking expert fees as part of a cost award is “required to provide evidence as to the breakdown of the expert’s fee before the trial court c[an] properly award same”). On appeal, Paravant argues that Langford only submitted into evidence lists of invoice totals from experts Edward Kinberg and Paul Dorf. We agree with Paravant that the evidence relating to fees paid to Kinberg and Dorf was insufficiently detailed tó support the cost award relating to these two experts. See id. However, Langford did submit detailed billing records relating to the work performed by Morris Hollander — and Paravant did not object to the sufficiency of these records below. Accordingly, we reverse the order on appeal and remand with directions that the trial court enter an amended cost judgment in the amount of $48,852.96 (the amount previously awarded, less the awards relating to Kinberg and Dorf).

REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.

SAWAYA and LAWSON, JJ., and WALLIS, F.R., Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Paravant, Inc. and Paravant Computer Systems, Inc. appeal a cost judgment in favor of William Langford, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support the costs as to three of Langford’s experts. See, e.g., Elder v. Islam, 869 So.2d 600, 602-03 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (recognizing a party seeking expert fees as part of a cost award is “required to provide evidence as to the breakdown of the expert’s fee before the trial court c[an] properly award same”). On appeal, Paravant argues that Langford only submitted into evidence lists of invoice totals from experts Edward Kinberg and Paul Dorf. We agree with Paravant that the evidence relating to fees paid to Kinberg and Dorf was insufficiently detailed tó support the cost award relating to these two experts. See id. However, Langford did submit detailed billing records relating to the work performed by Morris Hollander — and Paravant did not object to the sufficiency of these records below. Accordingly, we reverse the order on appeal and remand with directions that the trial court enter an amended cost judgment in the amount of $48,852.96 (the amount previously awarded, less the awards relating to Kinberg and Dorf).

REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.

SAWAYA and LAWSON, JJ., and WALLIS, F.R., Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 So. 3d 75, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 20065, 2011 WL 6258826, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paravant-inc-v-langford-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack