Narrative Opinion Summary
Appellant Lindh seeks a reversal of the trial court’s denial of attorney’s fees under section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1981), arguing there was no justiciable issue of law or fact. The court finds this argument meritless. The City of Venice, the appellee, contests the lower court's order that awarded costs to Lindh. The court reverses the order regarding costs related to travel expenses incurred by Lindh for depositions and for the costs of copies of depositions. Citing precedents, the court notes that travel costs for depositions are not recoverable (Professional Computer Management, Inc. v. Tampa Wholesale Liquor Co., 374 So.2d 626), and costs for copies of depositions are also improper (Ryan v. Beucher, 360 So.2d 15). However, it acknowledges a conflicting case (State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Sampaio, 374 So.2d 617) where copies of depositions may be taxable if they served a useful purpose. Chief Judge Ryder and Judge Schoonover concur with this decision.
Legal Issues Addressed
Award of Attorney's Fees Under Section 57.105, Florida Statutessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellant's request for attorney's fees was denied because the court found no merit in the claim that there was no justiciable issue of law or fact.
Reasoning: Appellant Lindh seeks a reversal of the trial court’s denial of attorney’s fees under section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1981), arguing there was no justiciable issue of law or fact. The court finds this argument meritless.
Recoverability of Travel Costs for Depositionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court reversed the lower court's order awarding travel costs for depositions, aligning with precedent that such costs are not recoverable.
Reasoning: The court reverses the order regarding costs related to travel expenses incurred by Lindh for depositions. Citing precedents, the court notes that travel costs for depositions are not recoverable (Professional Computer Management, Inc. v. Tampa Wholesale Liquor Co., 374 So.2d 626).
Taxability of Deposition Copy Costssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court reversed the order awarding costs for copies of depositions, adhering to precedent that such costs are improper unless they served a useful purpose as recognized in a conflicting case.
Reasoning: The court reverses the order regarding costs for the costs of copies of depositions. Citing precedents, the court notes that costs for copies of depositions are also improper (Ryan v. Beucher, 360 So.2d 15). However, it acknowledges a conflicting case (State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Sampaio, 374 So.2d 617) where copies of depositions may be taxable if they served a useful purpose.