Opinion ID: 2446193
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to Impose Terms and Conditions or Amend Judgment

Text: George contends that the trial court erred in failing to award him costs and attorneys' fees as a condition of the dismissal, and in failing to amend the dismissal to include such a condition after his Motion to Amend Judgment. We review both a trial court's decision to impose conditions on a dismissal and its decision on a motion to amend a judgment for abuse of discretion. [21] Generally, courts condition the voluntary dismissal on the requirement that the plaintiff pay defendant's attorneys' fees and costs in order `to compensate the defendant for the unnecessary expense that the litigation has caused' because `the defendant may have to defend again at a later time and incur duplicative legal expenses.' [22] Indeed, such conditions should be imposed as a matter of course in most cases. [23] George claims to have incurred hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorney fees. [24] While we review for an abuse of discretion, [a]ppellate deference is less warranted ... when the basis of the [lower] court's determination is unclear. [25] Where a trial court granted a motion for a voluntary dismissal but did not explicitly rule on appellant's request [for conditions], the Eleventh Circuit reversed and held: We simply cannot properly evaluate the district court's exercise of its discretion in this regard without the benefit of some record of the factors it took into consideration in reaching its decision. [26] Similarly, here, where the judge failed to provide any explanation for her decision to not award costs and fees in granting voluntary dismissal or in denying appellants' motion to amend, we cannot determine whether the decision not to award costs and fees was a proper exercise of discretion. [27] Indeed, as George points out, we are unable to discern if the judge even considered the issue, much less her reasons for rejecting the request. [28] We decline to surmise about the trial court's reasons by entertaining appellees' post-hoc arguments for why the refusal to award costs and fees might have been proper here. [29] We remand for reconsideration and a fuller explanation of the decision to deny costs.