Florida District Courts of Appeal, 1994

Mark Arnold Constr. v. Nat'l Lumber

Florida District Courts of Appeal · Decided August 12, 1994 · Per Curiam

642 So. 2d 576; 1994 WL 419593 (Southern Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

6 later published cases cite this decision.

Motter Roofing, Inc. v. Leibowitz (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)
AMISUB (AMERICAN HOSP.) INC. v. Hernandez (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)
Respiratory Care v. Murray D. Shear, Pa (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)
Lantigua v. Lopes (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)
Metropolitan Dade County v. Cerezo (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)
Westfield Ins. Co. v. Mendolera (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

642 So.2d 576 (1994)

MARK C. ARNOLD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Appellant/Cross-Appellee,
v.
NATIONAL LUMBER BROKERS, INC., Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

No. 93-1480.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

August 12, 1994.

Charles Evans Davis, Orlando, for appellant/cross-appellee.

Ernest J. Myers of Moody, Salzman & Robertson, Gainesville, for appellee/cross-appellant.

PER CURIAM.

ORDER ON APPELLEE'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES

In accordance with section 768.79, Florida Statutes, the appellee (plaintiff below) served a pretrial demand for judgment in the amount of $50,000, which the appellant refused. A judgment in the amount of $176,715.00 was entered in the trial court on a jury verdict in favor of the appellee.^[1] The trial court also awarded fees and costs because the judgment was "at least 25 percent greater than the offer." § 768.79(1), Fla. Stat. (1993).

We align ourselves with the Fourth^[2] and Fifth^[3] District Courts of Appeal in granting, on the same grounds, the appellee's motion for an award of reasonable costs and attorney's fees incurred in successfully defending the judgment on appeal. § 768.79, Fla. Stat. (1993). Pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate *577 Procedure 9.400, we remand for the trial court to determine the appropriate amount of the award.

BOOTH, ALLEN and BENTON, JJ., concur.

NOTES

[1] The trial court's judgment was affirmed per curiam in Mark C. Arnold Construction Company v. National Lumber Brokers, Inc., 641 So.2d 868 (1994).

[2] Schmidt v. Fortner, 629 So.2d 1036, 1043 n. 10 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).

[3] Williams v. Brochu, 578 So.2d 491, 495 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991).

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.