18 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 901a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 1809TEJA
Appeals — Costs — Filing fees for attorney’s fee order and attorney’s fee bond are taxable appellate costs where attorney’s fee order was money judgment for which execution would not be stayed pending appeal in absence of payment of bond under rule 9.310(b)(1)
MARIA TEJADA, Plaintiff, vs. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO., Defendant. County Court, 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County. Case No. 05-19158 cc 05 (03). July 1, 2011. Gladys Perez, Judge.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO TAX APPELLATE COSTS
THIS matter having come to be heard on June 30, 2011, after due notice to the parties, on Defendant’s Motion to Tax Appellate Costs, and the Court having heard argument of counsel, reviewed the record and pertinent legal authority, and having been otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby:
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
Defendant’s motion is hereby GRANTED for the following reasons.
At the hearing, Plaintiff argued that she should not be responsible for the filing fees of the Attorney Fee order or the Attorney Fee bond, reasoning that the attorney fee order would be nullified in the event of a reversal, as ultimately occurred. The Defendant maintained that they were required to appeal the Attorney Fee order, because it is a money judgment for which execution would not be stayed in the absence of a stay under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.310(b)(1).
A party appealing a money judgment may obtain a stay of the judgment pending appellate review in accordance with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.310(b)(1). “If the order is a judgment solely for the payment of money, a party may obtain an automatic stay of execution pending review, without the necessity of a motion or order, by posting a good and sufficient bond equal to the principal amount of the judgment plus twice the statutory rate of interest . . .” Fla. R. App. P. 9.310(1). This mechanism ensures payment to the judgment creditor following an unsuccessful appeal. See Fodor v. Geiszler, 958 So. 2d 446, 449 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) [32 Fla. L. Weekly D1185d]; see also generally Caruso v. Caruso, 932 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) [31 Fla. L. Weekly D1506a](holding that the trial court had no authority to withhold execution of a money judgment (or presumably grant a stay of execution) in absence of compliance with the bond requirement of Rule 9.310. But c.f. Platt v. Russek, 921 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) [29 Fla. L. Weekly D899a](discussing that trial court has the authority to grant a stay without posting of a bond or imposition of conditions that guarantee recovery, however such must be done with great care).
Although there may have been alternate appropriate methods for the defendant not to incur the costs at issue in this case, none of those alternate methods were pursued. Instead, the Defendant correctly utilized the automatic stay mechanism as provided in the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
