Title: United Services Automobile Assoc. v. John G. Phillips

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

1  We have consolidated these cases for disposition by one opinion. 
Supreme 
Court 
of 
Florida
____________
Nos. SC96796 & SC00-61
____________
UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION,
Petitioner,
vs.
JOHN G. PHILLIPS, etc.
Respondent.
RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.,
Petitioner,
vs.
SKILLED SERVICES CORPORATION,
Respondent.
[September 21, 2000]
PER CURIAM.
The above-styled cases were submitted to the Court for determination of
jurisdiction based on express and direct conflict, pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3),
Florida Constitution.1  Upon review, we determine that no such conflict exists.  We
-2-
therefore deny review in both cases.
Having concluded that no express and direct conflict exists, we find it necessary
to address the motions filed by the prevailing parties for attorney’s fees for services
rendered in this Court. Respondents Phillips and Skilled Services, respectively,  filed
motions in this Court seeking attorney’s fees, and in support both parties only referred
to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.400, and orders entered in the district court
below conditionally awarding attorney’s fees.  
Rule 9.400(b) states in pertinent part,:
(b)  Attorney’s Fees.  A motion for attorney’s fees . . . shall
state the grounds on which recovery is sought.
We interpret this language to require that a party seeking attorney’s fees in an
appellate court must provide substance and specify the particular contractual,
statutory, or other substantive basis for an award of fees on appeal.  It is simply
insufficient for parties to only refer to rule 9.400 or to rely on another court’s order in
support of a motion for attorney’s fees for services rendered in an appellate court. 
We specifically recede from Salley v. City of St. Petersburg, 511 So. 2d 975 (Fla.
1987), to the extent that it suggests that appellate fees may be awarded, even if a party
fails to comply with the substantive requirements of Florida Rule of Appellate
Procedure 9.400(b).
-3-
We intend for this policy to apply prospectively.  Therefore, we award
attorney’s fees in these cases to Phillips and Skilled Services, respectively, but take
this opportunity to clarify the requirements under our appellate rules for motions for
attorney’s fees.
It is so ordered.
WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS and
QUINCE, JJ., concur.
Two Cases Consolidated:
Applications for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal - 
Direct Conflict
Second District - Case No. 2D97-02462 
(Pinellas County)
and Fourth District - Case No. 4D99-0020
      
(Broward County)
Kimberly Staffa Mello and David J. Abbey of Fox, Grove, Abbey, Adams, Byelick
& Kiernan, L.L.P., St. Petersburg, Florida; and Thomas R. Shahady and John J.
Shahady of Houston & Shahady, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, Florida,
for Petitioners
Roy L. Glass, St. Petersburg, Florida; and Terry L. Hirsch and Leonard S. Englander
of Englander & Fischer, P.A., St. Petersburg, Florida,
for Respondents