Court Opinion

ID: 9960828
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-17 14:04:44.373907+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:54.976944
License: Public Domain

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA
                        SECOND DISTRICT

                   LYONS HERITAGE OF TAMPA, LLC,
                    a Florida limited liability company,

                                Appellant,

                                    v.

           OLUROTIMI PHILLIPS and JACQUELINE PHILLIPS,

                                Appellees.

                            No. 2D2023-1313

                              April 17, 2024

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Anne-Leigh
Gaylord Moe, Judge.

Timothy Brown and Adam Bild of Bild Law, Lutz, for Appellant.

George Harder and James C. Patterson of Harder Law Group, Tampa, for
Appellees.

SILBERMAN, Judge.
     Lyons Heritage of Tampa, LLC, appeals a final order entered in May
2023 awarding Olurotimi and Jacqueline Phillips attorneys' fees and
costs. This litigation arose from the construction of a home for the
Phillipses and an arbitration award in their favor. Lyons Heritage
unsuccessfully petitioned the circuit court for modification and/or
vacatur of the arbitration award. In September 2020 the circuit court
entered a final judgment in favor of the Phillipses that made no mention
of attorneys' fees or costs. Over one year later, the Phillipses filed a
motion requesting an award of fees and costs against Lyons Heritage
based on the final judgment. A successor judge entered the final order of
May 2023 awarding attorneys' fees and costs to the Phillipses. We agree
with Lyons Heritage that the successor judge erred in awarding the
Phillipses their attorneys' fees and costs and reverse.
                        I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
      When a dispute arose between the parties pertaining to the
construction of the Phillipses' home, the Phillipses initiated arbitration
proceedings against Lyons Heritage in accordance with the parties'
contract. After a hearing, the arbitrator entered an arbitration award
requiring the Phillipses to pay $25,000 to Lyons Heritage and requiring
Lyons Heritage to turn over possession of the home it constructed for the
Phillipses "free and clear of all liens and claims of its own" or of its
subcontractors or material suppliers.
      Lyons Heritage then filed a two-count petition in the circuit court
seeking modification and/or vacatur of the arbitration award. The
Phillipses filed their answer, affirmative defenses, and an amended
counterclaim that sought confirmation of the arbitration award under
section 682.12, Florida Statutes (2020). In the concluding paragraph of
their pleading, the Phillipses also requested attorneys' fees and costs.
The Phillipses later filed a motion for summary judgment, which again
requested fees and costs.
      The circuit court conducted a hearing on the motion for summary
judgment, but at the hearing, no mention was made of the request for
fees and costs. The circuit court then entered the September 2020 final
judgment in favor of the Phillipses, confirming the arbitrator's award.

                                       2
The judgment did not mention attorneys' fees or costs and did not
reserve jurisdiction for any purpose. Although Lyons Heritage appealed
the final judgment to this court, the appeal was voluntarily dismissed in
May 2021.
     In March 2022, the Phillipses filed in the circuit court a motion to
clarify the September 2020 final judgment and to confirm their
entitlement to fees and costs as the prevailing party pursuant to section
682.15. Lyons Heritage filed a response in opposition to this motion. By
this point, the original judge who had entered the final judgment was no
longer presiding over the case. After a hearing, the successor judge
granted the Phillipses' motion and stated in her written clarifying order:
     3. On September 8, 2020, Judge Holder granted all relief
     requested/contained in the Defendants' Motion for Summary
     Judgment filed by Defendants on June 29, 2020, in its
     entirety without exception against the Plaintiff which included
     Defendants' attorneys' fees and costs.
     4. The Notice required by Rule 1.525, Florida Rules of Civil
     Procedure, does not apply to this matter as entitlement of the
     Defendants to attorneys' fees and costs was granted by Judge
     Holder by his Order entered September 8, 2020. No notice to
     seek attorneys' fees or costs is required of Defendants
     subsequent to said Order.
     5. Defendants are entitled to their attorneys' fees and costs
     against Plaintiff as the prevailing Party herein pursuant to
     Section 682.15, Fla. Stat.
     The Phillipses next filed a motion and an amended motion for an
award of fees and costs. Following another evidentiary hearing, the
successor judge entered the May 2023 final order awarding attorneys'
fees and costs to the Phillipses in the amount of $14,531.55. Lyons
Heritage now appeals that final fee order. It argues that because the
Phillipses did not timely seek an award of fees and costs after the 2020
final judgment was entered, the successor judge erred in entering the

                                     3
clarifying order and the final order awarding fees and costs. The
Phillipses ask this court to affirm the final order, asserting that the
successor judge correctly found that the September 2020 final judgment
granted their motion for summary judgment, which included a request
for attorneys' fees and costs, and therefore, no additional notice or
motion seeking fees and costs was required.
     We conclude that the Phillipses were required to comply with the
time requirements of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525. We also note
that the final judgment could not be amended or corrected pursuant to
Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.530 or 1.540 to reflect a finding that
the Phillipses were entitled to an award of fees and costs because the
Phillipses' motion to clarify was untimely. We therefore reverse the
clarification order and the final order awarding attorneys' fees and costs.
                              II. DISCUSSION
     Rule 1.525 provides:
     Any party seeking a judgment taxing costs, attorneys' fees, or
     both shall serve a motion no later than 30 days after filing of
     the judgment, including a judgment of dismissal, or the
     service of a notice of voluntary dismissal, which judgment or
     notice concludes the action as to that party.
Rule 1.525 "requires only that the motion be served no later than thirty
days following the filing of the judgment." Barco v. Sch. Bd. of Pinellas
Cnty., 975 So. 2d 1116, 1124 (Fla. 2008). "The rule sets forth an outside
deadline of thirty days for service of the motion." Hovercraft of S. Fla.,
LLC v. Reynolds, 211 So. 3d 1073, 1076 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) (citing
Barco, 975 So. 2d at 1124).
     The Phillipses argue that this case falls within an exception to the
thirty-day requirement, citing AmerUs Life Insurance v. Lait, 2 So. 3d 203
(Fla. 2009). In AmerUs, the final judgment determined that AmerUs was

                                      4
entitled to attorneys' fees and costs, but it reserved jurisdiction to
determine the amounts. Id. at 206. The Florida Supreme Court held
that when a "trial court has determined entitlement to attorneys' fees and
costs in its final judgment, but reserves jurisdiction only to determine
the amount in attorneys' fees and costs that is owed," rule 1.525 does
not apply. Id. at 207-08. The supreme court noted that the purpose of
rule 1.525 is to avoid prejudice and unfair surprise; therefore, "once the
trial court determines entitlement to attorneys' fees and costs, the thirty-
day time requirement for filing motions for attorneys' fees and costs
under rule 1.525 is no longer necessary." Id. at 207. See also Chamizo
v. Forman, 933 So. 2d 1240, 1241 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (affirming an
award of fees and costs and determining that the timeliness of the
motion for fees and costs was a nonissue when the judgment "had
specifically awarded fees and costs to Forman" and the trial "court
reserved its jurisdiction solely to allow it to determine the amount of said
fees and costs").
      Under the circumstances, we cannot agree that the exception
applies.
            When a court retains jurisdiction to address post-
      judgment matters such as authorized motions for attorney's
      fees and costs, without a specific finding of entitlement in the
      order, a party's motion for attorney's fees and costs that is
      filed more than thirty days after the trial court's order is
      entered is untimely.
Fleming v. Blackwell-Gomez, 290 So. 3d 961, 962 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)
(emphasis added) (citing AmerUs, 2 So. 3d at 207). See also Hovercraft,
211 So. 3d at 1076 (concluding that a final judgment reserving
jurisdiction to determine entitlement to fees was not enough to avoid rule
1.525's thirty-day requirement). Here, the September 2020 final

                                      5
judgment made no finding that the Phillipses were entitled to an award of
attorneys' fees and costs, and it did not reserve jurisdiction to address
the matter. Indeed, the final judgment made no mention of attorneys'
fees and costs. The Phillipses argue, and the circuit court found, that
such language was unnecessary. The Phillipses maintain that the final
judgment granted all relief requested in their motion for summary
judgment, which included their request for fees and costs, and therefore,
the final judgment necessarily found that they were entitled to their fees
and costs. We conclude that the final judgment does not reflect such a
broad finding.
      The final judgment specifically found:
      1. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby
      GRANTED;
      2. A Final Judgment is granted in favor of Defendants and
      against Plaintiff as to Count I, "Modification of Arbitration
      Reasoned Award"; and Count II, "Vacatur of Arbitration
      Reasons Award" of Plaintiff's Petition herein; and
      3. The Award of the Arbitrator in the prior AAA Arbitration
      between the Parties is hereby confirmed.
      Although the judgment specifically ruled on counts one and two of
Lyons Heritage's petition and the award of the arbitrator, it made no
other specific findings. The fact that fees and costs were not mentioned
at the summary judgment hearing further supports the conclusion that
the final judgment did not award entitlement to fees and costs.
      We decline to extend the reach of the AmerUs exception to rule
1.525 when the final judgment fails to specifically determine entitlement
to attorneys' fees and costs. Therefore, the successor judge erred in
clarifying the final judgment and in awarding fees and costs to the
Phillipses.

                                     6
      Lyons Heritage also argues, and we agree, that the final judgment
could not be amended or altered to reflect an award of fees and costs
pursuant to rule 1.530, 1.540(a), or 1.540(b), because the Phillipses'
motion to clarify was untimely. Under rule 1.530(g), "[a] motion to alter
or amend the judgment shall be served not later than 15 days after the
date of filing of the judgment, except that this rule does not affect the
remedies in rule 1.540(b)." The Phillipses filed their motion eighteen
months after the judgment was filed, and they were not entitled to an
amended or altered judgment under rule 1.530(g) unless rule 1.540(b)
applies.
      With respect to rule 1.540(b), the Phillipses argued to the successor
judge that the final judgment was the product of the original judge's
mistake or inadvertence in not awarding entitlement to attorneys' fees
and costs. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540(b)(1) (allowing relief from a final
judgment for "mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect").
But rule 1.540(b) provides that a motion for relief from judgment
pursuant to rule 1.540(b)(1) shall be filed "not more than 1 year after the
judgment, decree, order, or proceeding was entered or taken." Further, a
pending "appeal does not extend the one-year limit for filing a Rule
1.540(b) motion." Molinos Del S.A. v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 947
So. 2d 521, 524 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); see also Weiss v. Berkett, 907 So.
2d 1181, 1183 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) ("The mere fact that an appeal was
taken from the judgment did not toll this one-year time frame.").
      "Florida law treats rule 1.540(b) as a 'jurisdictional boundary.' "
Castro v. Sun 'N Lake of Sebring Improvement Dist., 334 So. 3d 663, 666
(Fla. 2d DCA 2021) (quoting Romero v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 209 So.
3d 633, 635 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)). Once a final judgment is "beyond the
reach of rule 1.540(b)," that judgment "pass[es] into the unassailable

                                      7
realm of finality." Romero, 209 So. 3d at 635 (alteration in original)
(quoting Bank One, Nat'l Ass'n v. Batronie, 884 So. 2d 346, 349 (Fla. 2d
DCA 2004)).
          The Phillipses' motion was similarly untimely if it was considered
as a motion for rehearing under rule 1.530(a), because such motion must
be filed within fifteen days of the filing of the judgment. Fla. R. Civ. P.
1.530(b).
          Finally, we note that rule 1.540(a) allows for the correction of
clerical mistakes "by the court at any time on its own initiative or on the
motion of any party." However, an example of a clerical mistake is when
the judgment contains a typographical error. See Purdue v. R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co., 259 So. 3d 918, 921 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) (stating
that rule 1.540(a) "is essentially designed to correct typographical errors
and the like rather than to address due process violations or substantive
errors in a judgment"). The rule contemplates errors "in form, not
substance." Id. Rule 1.540's reference to "clerical mistakes" is only to
those "errors or mistakes arising from accidental slip or omission, and
not errors or mistakes in the [s]ubstance of what is decided by the
judgment or order." Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Byers v. Callahan,
848 So. 2d 1180, 1184 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)). The failure to specifically
determine entitlement to fees and costs was not a clerical mistake, and
relief was not available under rule 1.540(a). Thus the Phillipses' motion
to clarify filed eighteen months after the final judgment was entered was
untimely, and the successor judge did not have jurisdiction to grant
relief.
                                III. CONCLUSION
          Because the Phillipses' motions to clarify and for fees and costs
were untimely, the circuit court erred in awarding the Phillipses their

                                         8
attorneys' fees and costs. Accordingly, we reverse the order on the
Phillipses' motion to clarify and the May 2023 final order that awards
attorneys' fees and costs to the Phillipses.
      Reversed.

BLACK and SMITH, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.

                                      9