Siegel v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank

100 So. 3d 783, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 19725, 2012 WL 5500509
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedNovember 14, 2012
DocketNo. 4D10-3003
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 100 So. 3d 783 (Siegel v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank) 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
Siegel v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, 100 So. 3d 783, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 19725, 2012 WL 5500509 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a final judgment awarding attorney’s fees. We reversed, however, the underlying judgment. Siegel v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, 71 So.3d 935 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). Therefore, as conceded by appellees, the award of attorney’s fees and costs must likewise be reversed. See S & I Invs. v. Payless Flea Mkt., Inc., 40 So.3d 48, 49 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (quoting Viets v. Am. Recruiters Enters., Inc., 922 So.2d 1090, 1096 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (“ Where a court awards prevailing party attorney’s fees and the underlying judgment is vacated, the attorney’s fee judgment must also be vacated.’”); see also R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Grossman, 96 So.3d 948, 948 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (where underlying judgment is reversed and remanded for trial, the prevailing party cost judgment must be reversed as well).

We reject the contention that our denial of an award of appellate attorney’s fees in the prior appeal constitutes the “law of the case” as to any award of attorney’s fees in the trial court should the appellees prevail ultimately in the trial court proceedings. See, e.g., McNamara v. City of Lake Worth, 956 So.2d 509, 510-11 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). We simply determined that appellees were not entitled to a fee for the appellate representation in that appeal. As well, the other issues raised in this appeal depend upon factual determinations yet to be made by the trial court.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

MAY, C.J., WARNER and POLEN, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Ring Power Corporation v. Condado-Perez
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2017
Ring Power Corp. v. Condado-Perez
224 So. 3d 885 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2017)
Lucas Games, Inc. v. Morris AR Associates, LLC
212 So. 3d 405 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
100 So. 3d 783, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 19725, 2012 WL 5500509, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/siegel-v-jp-morgan-chase-bank-fladistctapp-2012.