You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Knox v. PPC, LLC

Citations: 183 So. 3d 1098; 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 8798; 2015 WL 3609094Docket: No. 4D13-3494

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; June 10, 2015; Florida; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

Appellants Janice Knox, Winthrop S. Knox, and William C. Tagland appeal a trial court order that granted Appellees PPC, LLC, Recreational Design Construction, Inc., Steven L. Siems, and Joe Cerrone’s amended motion for contempt and sanctions against them. The Appellants contest both the contempt ruling and the award of attorneys’ fees and costs as sanctions. However, the court finds that the Appellants did not provide an adequate record for review, leading to an affirmation of the contempt finding. Regarding the attorneys’ fees, the court notes that such awards are only appealable once the trial court has determined the specific amount. Since no final judgment on the fee amount has been issued, the appeal concerning attorneys’ fees is dismissed as premature. The final ruling is to affirm the contempt finding and dismiss the appeal on attorneys’ fees. Judges Ciklin, Forst, and KlingenSmith concur.

Legal Issues Addressed

Appealability of Attorneys' Fees Awards

Application: The appeal regarding the attorneys' fees was dismissed because a specific amount had not been determined by the trial court, rendering the appeal premature.

Reasoning: Regarding the attorneys’ fees, the court notes that such awards are only appealable once the trial court has determined the specific amount. Since no final judgment on the fee amount has been issued, the appeal concerning attorneys’ fees is dismissed as premature.

Contempt of Court Findings

Application: The court affirmed the trial court's finding of contempt against the Appellants due to the lack of an adequate record provided for review.

Reasoning: The Appellants contest both the contempt ruling and the award of attorneys’ fees and costs as sanctions. However, the court finds that the Appellants did not provide an adequate record for review, leading to an affirmation of the contempt finding.