Case Name: Marjorie R. MARTIN, individually, and Henry Spiegel, Anne Spiegel and the Diane Birmand Irrevocable Trust, as General Partners of Nottingham Associates, a Florida General Partnership, individually, and as representatives of all similarly situated shareholders of City National Bank Corporation, Appellants, v. Robert M. MARLIN and Jack D. Burstein, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1988-07-12
Citations: 528 So. 2d 943
Docket Number: No. 87-2563
Parties: Marjorie R. MARTIN, individually, and Henry Spiegel, Anne Spiegel and the Diane Birmand Irrevocable Trust, as General Partners of Nottingham Associates, a Florida General Partnership, individually, and as representatives of all similarly situated shareholders of City National Bank Corporation, Appellants, v. Robert M. MARLIN and Jack D. Burstein, Appellees.
Judges: Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and HUBBART and JORGENSON, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 528
Pages: 943–944

Head Matter:
Marjorie R. MARTIN, individually, and Henry Spiegel, Anne Spiegel and the Diane Birmand Irrevocable Trust, as General Partners of Nottingham Associates, a Florida General Partnership, individually, and as representatives of all similarly situated shareholders of City National Bank Corporation, Appellants, v. Robert M. MARLIN and Jack D. Burstein, Appellees.
No. 87-2563.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
July 12, 1988.
Kenny, Nachwalter & Seymour and Kevin J. Murray and Scott E. Perwin, Miami, for appellants.
Daniels & Hicks and Joseph C. Brock; Anderson, Moss, Russo & Cohen; Po-dhurst, Orseck, Parks, Josefsberg, Eaton, Meadow & Olin, Miami, for appellees.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and HUBBART and JORGENSON, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from an order awarding costs against them in the amount of $5,981.19 subsequent to the entry of an adverse final summary judgment. We agree entirely with the plaintiffs that the trial court abused its discretion in taxing as costs (1) $2,500 for photocopying expenses, and (2) $600 for transcripts of pretrial hearings, because it is plain on this record that neither of these items served a useful purpose for the defendants in securing the summary judgment in their favor. We further agree with the plaintiffs that the trial court abused its discretion in taxing as costs the nearly $3,000 for deposition transcripts because these items also served no useful purpose for the defendants in securing the summary judgment in their favor, save for the costs of the three depositions taken by the defendants which were, in part, relied on by the defendants in their motion for summary judgment. See Caceres v. Physicians Protective Trust Fund, 489 So.2d 869 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Vogel v. Allen, 443 So.2d 368 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Crane v. Stulz, 136 So.2d 238 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962).
The order taxing costs under review is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to tax as costs only the above-stated three depositions which were relied on by the defendants in their motion for summary judgment.
Reversed and remanded.