Walgreen Co. v. Sklandis

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Walgreen Co. v. Sklandis

895 So. 2d 1201, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 2043, 2005 WL 416173

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 23, 2005

DocketNos. 3D04-1519, 3D04-751

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 895 So. 2d 1201 (Walgreen Co. v. Sklandis) 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

Walgreen Co. v. Sklandis, 895 So. 2d 1201, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 2043, 2005 WL 416173 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

WELLS, Judge.

In this personal injury action, Walgreen Company appeals a final judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of Joseph SMan-dis claiming that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to dismiss this action for fraud on the court and for refusing to permit it to introduce documentary evidence of that fraud. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s rulings in either respect and affirm the final judgment.

Walgreen Company also appeals a final judgment awarding attorney’s fees and costs to Sklandis pursuant to a proposal for settlement dated February 7, 2002. At oral argument, Sklandis’ counsel conceded [1202]*1202that the wrong settlement proposal had been used when calculating attorney’s fees and costs, and that a proposal dated January 8, 2003, should have been used instead. We agree. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s determination that Sklandis is entitled to an award of fees and costs, including the expert witness fee awarded, but remand with directions to reduce the fee and cost judgment to award fees and costs incurred only after January 8, 2003. See § 768.79(1), Fla. Stat. (2000)(stating that a recovering plaintiff should recover “reasonable costs and attorney’s fees incurred from the date of the filing of the demand”).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, remanded with instructions.

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

WELLS, Judge.

In this personal injury action, Walgreen Company appeals a final judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of Joseph SMan-dis claiming that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to dismiss this action for fraud on the court and for refusing to permit it to introduce documentary evidence of that fraud. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s rulings in either respect and affirm the final judgment.

Walgreen Company also appeals a final judgment awarding attorney’s fees and costs to Sklandis pursuant to a proposal for settlement dated February 7, 2002. At oral argument, Sklandis’ counsel conceded [1202]*1202that the wrong settlement proposal had been used when calculating attorney’s fees and costs, and that a proposal dated January 8, 2003, should have been used instead. We agree. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s determination that Sklandis is entitled to an award of fees and costs, including the expert witness fee awarded, but remand with directions to reduce the fee and cost judgment to award fees and costs incurred only after January 8, 2003. See § 768.79(1), Fla. Stat. (2000)(stating that a recovering plaintiff should recover “reasonable costs and attorney’s fees incurred from the date of the filing of the demand”).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, remanded with instructions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

895 So. 2d 1201, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 2043, 2005 WL 416173, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walgreen-co-v-sklandis-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack