Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Department of Transportation v. Enterprising Professional Investment Company
Date: 01-25-2002
Case Number: 2D01-160
Judge: Fulmer
Court: Florida Court of Appeals, Second District
Plaintiff's Attorney: Pamela S. Leslie, General Counsel, and
Richard A. Weis, Assistant General Counsel,
Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Defendant's Attorney: George N. Meros, Jr., Mark N. Miller, and
Lori S. Rowe of Gray, Harris & Robinson,
P.A., Tallahassee, Florida, for Appellee.
costs and an expert appraiser's fee to Enterprising Professional Investment Company
(EPIC) in an eminent domain proceeding.
* * *
On February 11, 2000, a final judgment was entered that incorporated a
jury verdict awarding EPIC $65,000 for the value of land taken and severance
damages. The final judgment also reserved jurisdiction to award fees, costs, and
interest to be determined by the trial court at a later hearing.
Four months after entry of the final judgment, EPIC filed a Motion to Tax
Fees and Costs seeking an expert appraiser's fee and litigation costs incurred. At the
hearing on EPIC's Motion to Tax Fees and Costs, counsel for both parties confirmed,
upon questioning by the trial judge, that the final judgment award was less than the
amount of an offer of judgment made by the Department. The Department argued that
because the final judgment award was less than the offer of judgment, EPIC was
precluded, under section 73.032(5), Florida Statutes (1999), from recovering any fees
or costs incurred after rejection of the offer of judgment. EPIC objected to any
reference to the offer of judgment, arguing that the Department had not timely filed a motion for sanctions under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442(g).2 The Department
responded that it was not seeking sanctions as contemplated by the rule.
The trial judge sustained EPIC's objection and ruled that the nonpayment
of fees and costs is a sanction, that the Department had not made a timely motion for
sanctions pursuant to rule 1.442(g), and, thus, the offer of judgment would not be
considered. The Department then sought, unsuccessfully, to state an ore tenus motion
for sanctions. The trial court informed counsel for the Department that it would not
entertain any ore tenus motions, but that the Department could file the motion later.
Upon conclusion of the testimony related to the incurring and reasonableness of the
expert fees and litigation costs, the Department renewed its objection.
* * *
Click the case caption above for the full
text of the Court's opinion.
Statutes (1999).
About This Case
What was the outcome of Department of Transportation v. Enterprising Professional...?
The outcome was: We reverse because, in determining EPIC's entitlement to costs, the trial court failed to properly apply section 73.032(5), Florida Statutes (1999).
Which court heard Department of Transportation v. Enterprising Professional...?
This case was heard in Florida Court of Appeals, Second District, FL. The presiding judge was Fulmer.
Who were the attorneys in Department of Transportation v. Enterprising Professional...?
Plaintiff's attorney: Pamela S. Leslie, General Counsel, and Richard A. Weis, Assistant General Counsel, Tallahassee, for Appellant.. Defendant's attorney: George N. Meros, Jr., Mark N. Miller, and Lori S. Rowe of Gray, Harris & Robinson, P.A., Tallahassee, Florida, for Appellee..
When was Department of Transportation v. Enterprising Professional... decided?
This case was decided on January 25, 2002.