Case Name: Linda Lee TRAVIESO, Petitioner, v. Jose R. TRAVIESO, Jr., Respondent
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1985-08-22
Citations: 474 So. 2d 1184
Docket Number: No. 65316
Parties: Linda Lee TRAVIESO, Petitioner, v. Jose R. TRAVIESO, Jr., Respondent.
Judges: BOYD, C.J., and ADKINS and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 474
Pages: 1184–1189

Head Matter:
Linda Lee TRAVIESO, Petitioner, v. Jose R. TRAVIESO, Jr., Respondent.
No. 65316.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Aug. 22, 1985.
Cynthia L. Greene of Law Offices of Frumkes and Greene, Miami, for petitioner.
Elizabeth S. Baker, South Miami, for respondent.

Opinion:
ALDERMAN, Justice.
We review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, in Travieso v. Travieso, 447 So.2d 940 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), because it expressly and directly conflicts with Murphy v. Tallardy, 422 So.2d 1098 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).
We accepted jurisdiction to resolve the conflict on the issue of whether an expert witness fee may be properly taxed as costs when an attorney testifies as an expert on the subject of the amount of attorney's fees. The facts of this post-dissolution proceedings case are well stated in the Third District's decision and do not need repetition here. Relying on its earlier decision in Mills v. Aronovitz, 404 So.2d 138 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), review denied, 415 So.2d 1360 (Fla.1982), the Third District, in the present case, affirmed the trial court's denial of petitioner's request for expert witness fees. The Fourth District in Murphy v. Tallardy held that, pursuant to section 92.231, Florida Statutes (1981), expert witness fees may be taxed as costs for a lawyer who testifies as an expert regarding the value of a reasonable attorney's fee for counsel for one of the parties. We agree with the holding of the Fourth District in Murphy v. Tallardy and disagree with the Third District's holding on this issue in the present case and in Mills v. Aronovitz.
Section 92.231, Florida Statutes (1983), provides:
(1) The term "expert witness" as used herein shall apply to any witness who offers himself in the trial of any civil action as an expert witness or who is subpoenaed to testify in such capacity before a state attorney in the investigation of a criminal matter, or before a grand jury, and who is permitted by the court to qualify and testify as such, upon any matter pending before any court.
(2) Any expert or skilled witness who shall have testified in any cause shall be allowed a witness fee including the cost of any exhibits used by such witness in the amount of $10 per hour or such amount as the trial judge may deem reasonable, and the same shall be taxed as costs.
The language of this statute is broad and clearly encompasses the type of expert fee sought in the present case. The Fourth District in Tallardy correctly interpreted this provision to mean that when a person is called to testify in any cause if such person is presented and accepted by the court as an expert, the party calling the witness may have an expert witness fee taxed if costs are awarded to that party.
The Fourth District acknowledged that some courts had modified this statute by judicial fiat to allow expert witness fees only when the expert testifies as to the main issues as opposed to collateral issues in a case. It gave as an example Mills v. Aronovitz upon which the Third District relies for its holding in the-present case.
In Mills, expert witness fees were allowed to several lawyers who testified as experts on the value of the legal services rendered. That case, however, involved a suit by two attorneys against Mills alleging that they had rendered legal services for which he had agreed to pay but had not. Not material to its holding, and therefore dicta, the Third District in Mills opined that if the testimony of attorney-experts is offered not as part of the trial but in proceedings collateral to trial, section 90.231(1) (now section 92.231) does not authorize expert witness fees to be taxed as costs. As authority for this dicta, the Third District cited several cases including Robert & Co. Associates v. Zabawczuk, 200 So.2d 802 (Fla.1967), which involve the interpretation of a portion of the workers' compensation statute which authorizes fees to expert witnesses. It also cited to its earlier decisions of Allstate Insurance Co. v. Chastain, 251 So.2d 354 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971), writ discharged, 263 So.2d 578 (Fla.1972), and Plever v. Bray, 266 So.2d 54 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972), wherein it had relied upon Zabawczuk.
The Fourth District in Tallardy properly determined that the narrow construction of the provision of the workers' compensation statute by this Court in Zabawczuk to effectuate the purpose of that act as evidenced by its history does not logically nor reasonably require such a construction of section 92.231. Judge Downey, speaking for the court, accurately explained:
It should be noted that the essential provisions of Sections 440.31 and 92.231 are quite similar. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court was interpreting a workers compensation statute when it said:
It is our view, in accord with that of the commission, that the statutory provision, P.S.A. § 440.31, for the award of expert fees authorizes only the payment of fees to experts testifying in the case with reference to direct benefits of the claimant, and that the statute was never intended to cover the award of fees to witnesses appearing in behalf of attorneys who claim counsel fees payable under our act. While the point is novel, the provision for payment to witnesses testifying "in any proceeding under this chapter" is most reasonably construed, in view of the history of the statute, to proceedings for compensation to claimant rather than proceedings, essentially collateral, for determination of the amount of attorney's fees. (Emphasis added.) 200 So.2d 802 at 803-804.
It is thus apparent that the foregoing construction was arrived at "in view of the history of the statute." That history is graphically described in the later case of Lee Engineering & Construction Co. v. Fellows, 209 So.2d 454 (Fla.1968), wherein the Supreme Court said:
The Workmen's Compensation Act was originally passed as administrative legislation to be simple, expeditious, and inexpensive so that the injured employee, his family, or society generally, would be relieved of the economic stress resulting from work-connected injuries, and place the burden on the industry which caused the injury. JJ. Murphy & Son, Inc. v. Gibbs (1962), Fla., 137 So.2d 553; Port Everglades Terminal Co. v. Canty (1960), Fla., 120 So.2d 596. It was contemplated that relief would be immediately forthcoming as a substitute for the wages of the working man and that little, if any, delay or long deliberation would ensue. The Act "was pitched on the theory that the claimant could litigate his own cause"_ 209 So.2d 454 at 456.
422 So.2d at 1099-1100.
We note that the Second District in B & L Motors, Inc. v. Bignotti, 427 So.2d 1070 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), disagreed with the Fourth District's ruling in Tallardy and affirmed the trial court's refusal to tax as costs the fees for attorney expert witnesses who testified at the hearing on attorney's fees. We disapprove this holding in Bignotti insofar as it conflicts with our present decision. We also disapprove the dicta in Mills which conflicts with our present holding.
We hold that pursuant to section 92.231, expert witness fees, at the discretion of the trial court, may be taxed as costs for a lawyer who testifies as an expert as to reasonable attorney's fees. We do not hold that such expert witness fees must be awarded in all cases. Generally, lawyers are willing to testify gratuitously for other lawyers on the issue of reasonable attorney's fees. This traditionally has been a matter of professional courtesy. An attorney is an officer of the court and should be willing to give the expert testimony necessary to ensure that the trial court has the requisite competent evidence to determine reasonable fees. Only in the exceptional case where the time required for preparation and testifying is burdensome, should the attorney expect compensation.
We find no merit to the other issues presented.
Accordingly, we quash only that part of the Third District's decision relating to its affirmance of the trial court's denial of petitioner's request for expert witness fees. The remainder of the district court's decision is approved. This cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
BOYD, C.J., and ADKINS and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.
EHRLICH, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion.
OVERTON, J., dissents with an opinion in which SHAW, J., concurs.