STATE, DOT v. Southtrust Bank
886 So. 2d 393 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.090(b), which allows for an enlargement of time, may be applied to extend the 30-day deadline for serving a motion for costs and fees under Rule 1.525 if the failure to timely file was the result of excusable neglect.
Facts:
- A stipulated final judgment in an eminent domain case was entered in favor of Southtrust Bank on April 8, 2003.
- On April 29, 2003, the secretary for Southtrust Bank's attorney prepared a motion to tax expert witness fees and costs against the Department of Transportation.
- Due to an oversight by the secretary, the prepared motion was not filed or served but was instead left in the case file.
- The secretary discovered the unfiled motion in the file on May 29, 2003.
- The motion to tax fees and costs was ultimately served on the Department of Transportation's attorney on May 30, 2003, more than 30 days after the final judgment was entered.
Procedural Posture:
- A stipulated final judgment was entered for Southtrust Bank in an eminent domain case at the trial court level.
- After the 30-day deadline passed, Southtrust Bank served a motion to tax expert witness fees and a motion for an enlargement of time.
- The Department of Transportation (appellant) filed a motion to strike the motion to tax fees as untimely under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525.
- The trial court found that the late filing was the result of 'excusable neglect' and granted Southtrust Bank's motion for an enlargement of time.
- The trial court subsequently entered an order taxing expert witness fees and a second order for supplemental fees against the Department of Transportation.
- The Department of Transportation (appellant) appealed both orders to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, with Southtrust Bank as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.090(b), which permits a court to enlarge time upon a showing of excusable neglect, apply to the 30-day deadline for serving a motion to tax costs and fees established by Rule 1.525?
Opinions:
Majority - Webster, J.
Yes. A court may permit an enlargement of time to serve a motion for costs and fees beyond the 30-day deadline set by Rule 1.525 where the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect under Rule 1.090(b). The court reasoned that rules of civil procedure dealing with the same subject matter must be construed together to avoid rendering any rule meaningless. Rule 1.525 establishes a 30-day deadline, but Rule 1.090(b) provides a general mechanism for extending time for any act required by the rules, with certain specific exceptions. Since a motion for costs under Rule 1.525 is not one of the enumerated exceptions in Rule 1.090(b), the trial court has the discretion to grant an extension upon a showing of 'excusable neglect.' The court further held that a secretary's oversight is precisely the type of clerical or administrative error that constitutes excusable neglect, distinguishing it from an attorney's ignorance of the law, which generally does not.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that the 'bright-line' 30-day deadline for filing motions for attorney's fees and costs under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525 is not absolute or jurisdictional. It harmonizes Rule 1.525 with the general procedural rule allowing for extensions of time (Rule 1.090(b)), thereby preserving judicial discretion to prevent a forfeiture of rights due to simple clerical errors. The ruling provides a critical safety valve for litigants who miss the deadline due to administrative mishaps rather than strategic delay or ignorance of the law, reinforcing the principle that procedural rules should be administered to secure the just determination of every action.
