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.

Oliveri v. Bateman Group, Inc.

Citations: 874 So. 2d 1290; 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 8592; 2004 WL 1359649Docket: No. 2D03-4786

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; June 18, 2004; Florida; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

Charles Oliveri appealed an order awarding The Bateman Group, Inc. attorney’s fees and costs totaling $1,431.25 after his complaint was dismissed for failure to prosecute. The court asserted jurisdiction to review the order as a final order under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(b)(1)(A), despite the absence of execution language in the order. Citing case law, the court noted that while such language is not essential for finality, its omission could affect the ability to execute the judgment. Ultimately, the court determined that the trial court erred in awarding attorney’s fees and costs because Bateman did not submit a timely motion as required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525. The order was reversed, with Judges Fulmer and Silberman concurring.

Legal Issues Addressed

Appellate Jurisdiction under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(b)(1)(A)

Application: The court exercised jurisdiction to review an order awarding attorney’s fees as a final order, even in the absence of execution language.

Reasoning: The court asserted jurisdiction to review the order as a final order under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(b)(1)(A), despite the absence of execution language in the order.

Finality of Orders Without Execution Language

Application: The court recognized that while execution language is not essential for an order's finality, its absence might impact the ability to execute the judgment.

Reasoning: Citing case law, the court noted that while such language is not essential for finality, its omission could affect the ability to execute the judgment.

Timeliness Requirement for Attorney’s Fees Motion under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525

Application: The trial court's award of attorney’s fees and costs was reversed because the motion was not submitted within the time frame mandated by the rule.

Reasoning: Ultimately, the court determined that the trial court erred in awarding attorney’s fees and costs because Bateman did not submit a timely motion as required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525.