State Ex Rel. Marsh v. Doran
This text of 958 So. 2d 1082 (State Ex Rel. Marsh v. Doran) 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
STATE of Florida, ex rel., Elmer MARSH and Richard Storm, qui tam, Appellants,
v.
Theodore R. DORAN, individually, Doran, Wolfe, Rost & Ansay, P.A., a Law Firm incorporated under the laws of the State of Florida, Appellees.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Paul M. Meredith and N. Kate Estes, of The Meredith Law Firm, St. Augustine, for Appellants.
Theodore R. Doran, Michael Ciocchetti, and Audrie M. Harris, of Doran, Wolfe, Ansay, & Kundid, Daytona Beach; and David H. Burns, Tallahassee, for Appellees.
PER CURIAM.
The primary issue in this case is whether the appellees were "prevailing parties" under section 68.086(3), Florida Statutes (2002). We hold that a defendant is entitled to recover attorney's fees under section 68.086(3), which awards fees to the prevailing party, after the plaintiff takes a voluntary dismissal without prejudice. The refiling of the same suit after the voluntary dismissal does not alter the appellees' right to recover prevailing party attorney's fees incurred in defense of the first suit. Caufield v. Cantele, 837 So.2d 371 (Fla. 2002); Alhambra Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Asad, 943 So.2d 316 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). We find no error in the trial judge's denial of the motion for recusal.
AFFIRMED.
BARFIELD, WOLF, and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
958 So. 2d 1082, 2007 WL 1730323, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-marsh-v-doran-fladistctapp-2007.