Schmigel v. CUMBIE CONCRETE COMPANY
This text of 915 So. 2d 776 (Schmigel v. CUMBIE CONCRETE COMPANY) 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.
Opinion
Ruby L. SCHMIGEL, Appellant,
v.
CUMBIE CONCRETE COMPANY, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Marie A. Mattox and James Garrity of Marie A. Mattox, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Marsha E. Rule, Martin P. McDonnell, and Harold F.X. Purnell of Rutledge, Ecenia, Purnell & Hoffman, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the trial court's award of attorney's fees pursuant to sections 57.105(1)(a) and 448.104, Florida Statutes (2004). Section 57.105(4) does not provide a 21-day safe harbor when the trial court awards fees on its own initiative, as authorized by subsection (1), because subsection (4) applies only to "[a] motion by a party." Appellants cannot claim lack of notice under the facts at bar, because the trial court grounded its award upon the issue appellee raised in its motion for attorney's fees; nor can appellants claim lack of opportunity to be heard, because the trial court set forth a briefing schedule that appellants failed to utilize.
AFFIRMED.
ERVIN, DAVIS and BENTON, JJ., Concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
915 So. 2d 776, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 19676, 2005 WL 3406213, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schmigel-v-cumbie-concrete-company-fladistctapp-2005.