Hovercraft of S. Fla., LLC v. Reynolds

211 So.3d 1073

HOVERCRAFT OF SOUTH FLORIDA, LLC, etc., Appellant,

v.Ronald E. REYNOLDS, Joseph T. Fischer, et al., Appellees.

Case No. 5D15–2629

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed February 10, 2017

Mark D. Shuman, of GrayRobinson, P.A, Melbourne, for Appellant.

James P. Beadle, of Spira, Beadle & McGarrell, P.A., Palm Bay, for Appellees Edmund Seijo, David Kaleel and Lesa Kaleel.

Patricia K. Olney, of Patricia K. Olney, P.A., Merritt Island, for Appellees Ronald E. Reynolds, Joseph T. Fischer and Eleanor O. Fischer.

No Appearance for remaining Appellee.

BERGER, J.

Hovercraft of South Florida, LLC, appeals the trial court's order granting attorney's fees to Ronald E. Reynolds, Joseph T. and Eleanor Fischer, Edmund Seijo, and David and Lesa Kaleel (collectively Appellees). Hovercraft argues that the trial court erred in finding that Appellees were entitled to attorney's fees despite their failure to file a motion for attorney's fees within thirty days after the final judgment. We agree and reverse.

The underlying case involved a dispute over the right to use four recreational boat slips in a marina owned by Hovercraft. On June 29, 2010, the case was resolved against Hovercraft by entry of a consolidated final judgment in favor of Appellees that awarded Appellees damages and injunctive relief. The judgment was split into four sections: one each for Reynolds, Seijo, the Fischers, and the Kaleels. The following language was included in each section: "The Court reserves jurisdiction to determine attorney's fees and costs."

On June 30, 2010, Hovercraft filed a motion for new trial and/or rehearing. The motion was denied on November 24, 2010. Thereafter, on December 15, 2010, Seijo and Kaleel filed their Motion for Entry of Final Judgment for Attorney's Fees. Reynolds and Fischer filed their motion for attorney's fees on December 22, 2010. Appellees argued that the consolidated final judgment reserved jurisdiction to determine the amounts of attorney's fees to which the prevailing parties were entitled.

On March 14, 2013, the trial court held a hearing on the attorney's fees issue. The issue was whether Appellees were entitled to attorney's fees in light of the fact that they had filed their request for fees, pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525, outside of the thirty-day window after the filing of the final judgment. Citing AmerUs Life Insurance Co. v. Lait , 2 So.3d 203 (Fla. 2009), Appellees argued that if a party prevailed in a case and the trial court reserved jurisdiction on the issue of attorney's fees, the thirty-day requirement did not apply.

In response, Hovercraft asserted that Appellees misread AmerUs and that the thirty-day deadline is only inapplicable when the trial court determines a party's entitlement to attorney's fees in the final judgment and reserves jurisdiction only on the amount of the attorney's fees. Here, Hovercraft argued, the trial court merely reserved jurisdiction on the issue of attorney's fees without identifying which party was entitled to recover.

After the hearing, but before the trial court ruled, Seijo and Kaleel filed a Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.090(b) motion for entry of an order allowing the late filing of the motion for entry of a judgment for attorney's fees and costs. In the motion, Seijo and Kaleel argued that the parties had "worked together regarding various procedural/timing matters" and that Hovercraft had previously communicated with Appellees with the understanding that they were entitled to attorney's fees. Seijo and Kaleel maintained that they had relied on that course of conduct in determining that it was unnecessary to comply with the thirty-day requirement of rule 1.525. Seijo and Kaleel noted that they waited to file their motion for attorney's fees until after the trial court entered an order on Hovercraft's motion for rehearing and that "[i]t is not an uncommon practice between members of the local bar to agree to not hold themselves to filing time lines."

Hovercraft opposed the motion, arguing that Seijo and Kaleel's failure to file a timely motion for attorney's fees was not the result of excusable neglect. It also noted that, while the parties had "freely extended courtesies" to each other, Hovercraft's actions could not have "lulled" Seijo and Kaleel into believing they did not need to comply with procedural deadlines.

The trial court ultimately entered an order granting attorney's fees and costs to Appellees. The trial court cited to AmerUs in finding that Appellees were the prevailing parties at trial and were entitled to attorney's fees. The trial court added that Appellees' entitlement to attorney's fees had already been determined, thus eliminating the need for the thirty-day requirement of rule 1.525. As an alternative basis, the trial court determined Appellees established excusable neglect. This appeal followed.

Rule 1.525 establishes a bright-line time requirement for motions seeking attorney's fees and costs. It states:

Any party seeking a judgment taxing costs, attorneys' fees, or both shall serve a motion no later than 30 days after filing of the judgment, including a judgment of dismissal, or the service of a notice of voluntary dismissal, which judgment or notice concludes the action as to that party.

Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.525. The rule sets forth an outside deadline of thirty days for service of the motion. Barco v. Sch. Bd. of Pinellas Cty. , 975 So.2d 1116, 1124 (Fla. 2008). The thirty-day time limit is not tolled by a motion for rehearing. Jackson v. Anthony , 39 So.3d 1285, 1286 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). Though an extension of time may be granted, absent excusable neglect, a motion seeking an extension must be filed within the thirty-day time period. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.090(b) ; see also Hart v. City of Groveland , 919 So.2d 665, 668 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) ("[A]n extension of time to file a motion for costs and attorney's fees, provided by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.090(b) must be filed within the 30–day period, unless excusable neglect can be established." (citing Lyn v. Lyn , 884 So.2d 181, 185 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) )).

Appellees' attempt to use AmerUs to support their argument that the thirty-day requirement did not apply is misguided. In AmerUs , the final judgment included a statement that the defendant was "liable to the plaintiff" for attorney's fees. 2 So.3d at 204. By contrast, here, the trial court did not make any statement suggesting Appellees were entitled to attorneys' fees at the time of filing the final judgment. The final judgment simply states, "[t]he Court reserves jurisdiction to determine attorney's fees and costs." This is a distinction with a difference.

Reserving jurisdiction to award fees does not override the thirty-day requirement of rule 1.525. Hart , 919 So.2d at 668. In order to avoid the thirty-day requirement, the judgment itself must determine entitlement to attorney's fees and costs and reserve jurisdiction only as to the amount owed. AmerUs , 2 So.3d at 207–08. Contrary to the trial court's determination, the final judgment in this case did not determine entitlement to attorney's fees. As such, Appellees were required to file their motion for fees within thirty days of entry of the final judgment.¹ This they did not do. As such, it was error to determine otherwise.²

With regard to Seijo and Kaleel, our analysis does not end here. Inasmuch as they filed a rule 1.090(b) motion for extension of time to file their motion for attorney's fees three years after entry of the consolidated final judgment, we must now determine whether the trial court erred in granting the motion for fees on the alternative theory of excusable neglect.

Rule 1.090(b) provides:

(b) Enlargement. When an act is required or allowed to be done at or within a specified time by order of court, by these rules, or by notice given thereunder, for cause shown the court at any time in its discretion (1) with or without notice, may order the period enlarged if request therefor is made before the expiration of the period originally prescribed or as extended by a previous order, or (2) upon motion made and notice after the expiration of the specified period, may permit the act to be done when failure to act was the result of excusable neglect , but it may not extend the time for making a motion for new trial, for rehearing, or to alter or amend a judgment; making a motion for relief from a judgment under rule 1.540(b); taking an appeal or filing a petition for certiorari; or making a motion for a directed verdict.

Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.090(b) (emphasis added).

We review a trial court's finding of excusable neglect for an abuse of discretion. See Dep't of Transp. v. Southtrust Bank , 886 So.2d 393, 396 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (citing Lyn , 884 So.2d at 185 ). This Court has previously held that the proper standard for determining excusable neglect in failing to comply with a procedural rule involves taking "into account all of the relevant circumstances, including prejudice to the other party, the reason for the delay, the duration of the delay, and whether the movant acted in good faith." Carter v. Lake Cty. , 840 So.2d 1153, 1157 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (citing Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick...