Stephanie Sackett v. David Tubero and Paula Tubero

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Stephanie Sackett v. David Tubero and Paula Tubero

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 9, 2025

Docket4D2024-2565

StatusPublished

This text of Stephanie Sackett v. David Tubero and Paula Tubero (Stephanie Sackett v. David Tubero and Paula Tubero) 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

Stephanie Sackett v. David Tubero and Paula Tubero, (Fla. Ct. App. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

STEPHANIE SACKETT, Appellant,

v.

DAVID TUBERO and PAULA TUBERO, Appellees.

No. 4D2024-2565

[July 9, 2025]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Jaimie R. Goodman, Judge; L.T. Case No. 2022CA008018.

Lisa M. Boswell of Lisa M. Boswell, P.A. Wellington, for appellant.

No appearance for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Ortuzar v. Foley, 339 So. 3d 456, 458 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022) (holding that the reference in section 83.48, Florida Statutes (2022), to a “judgment” requires a “final adjudication of the merits of an action” to trigger entitlement to attorney’s fees); Aquino v. Choy, 367 So. 3d 538, 538– 39 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023) (affirming the denial of an award of prevailing party attorney’s fees based upon section 83.48, because the statute “does not provide that attorney’s fees will inure to the prevailing party; it provides that a party in whose favor a judgment or decree has been rendered may recover fees from the nonprevailing party . . . [a]nd a voluntary dismissal without prejudice is not an adjudication of the merits”); Kovic v. Kovic, 336 So. 3d 22, 25 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022) (holding that an argument raised for the first time in the motion for rehearing in the trial court “is not preserved for appeal”).

WARNER, GROSS and CONNER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

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

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

STEPHANIE SACKETT, Appellant,

v.

DAVID TUBERO and PAULA TUBERO, Appellees.

No. 4D2024-2565

[July 9, 2025]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Jaimie R. Goodman, Judge; L.T. Case No. 2022CA008018.

Lisa M. Boswell of Lisa M. Boswell, P.A. Wellington, for appellant.

No appearance for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Ortuzar v. Foley, 339 So. 3d 456, 458 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022) (holding that the reference in section 83.48, Florida Statutes (2022), to a “judgment” requires a “final adjudication of the merits of an action” to trigger entitlement to attorney’s fees); Aquino v. Choy, 367 So. 3d 538, 538– 39 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023) (affirming the denial of an award of prevailing party attorney’s fees based upon section 83.48, because the statute “does not provide that attorney’s fees will inure to the prevailing party; it provides that a party in whose favor a judgment or decree has been rendered may recover fees from the nonprevailing party . . . [a]nd a voluntary dismissal without prejudice is not an adjudication of the merits”); Kovic v. Kovic, 336 So. 3d 22, 25 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022) (holding that an argument raised for the first time in the motion for rehearing in the trial court “is not preserved for appeal”).

WARNER, GROSS and CONNER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Stephanie Sackett v. David Tubero and Paula Tubero, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stephanie-sackett-v-david-tubero-and-paula-tubero-fladistctapp-2025.