Byrne-Henry v. Hertz Corp.

Decision Date05 April 2006
Docket NumberNo. 3D04-2774.,3D04-2774.
Citation927 So.2d 66
PartiesMonica BYRNE-HENRY, Appellant, v. The HERTZ CORPORATION and Stella Chin, Appellees.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Ginsberg & Schwartz and Arnold R. Ginsberg, Miami; Nelson & Freedlander, for appellant.

Wagenfeld Levine and Edward S. Polk, Miami, for appellees.

Before SHEPHERD, SUAREZ, and CORTIÑAS, JJ.

SUAREZ, Judge.

Monica Byrne-Henry appeals the trial court's order granting entitlement to taxable costs to Hertz Corporation ("Hertz") and Stella Chin. We affirm as the motion for taxable costs was served timely pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525.

This matter arises out of an action filed by Monica Byrne-Henry against Hertz and Stella Chin. The case was called to trial on January 21, 2004. Monica Byrne-Henry's request for a continuance was denied. She then announced the taking of a voluntary dismissal. Thereafter, on numerous occasions, attorneys for Hertz attempted to contact the attorneys for Monica Byrne-Henry to request the filing of the notice of voluntary dismissal. On February 23, 2004, Hertz served its motion to tax costs. Two days later, on February 25, 2004, Monica Byrne-Henry served her notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice. On April 2, 2004, Hertz filed affidavits in support of its motion for taxable costs. The hearing on costs was reset a number of times and canceled. Prior to the July, 2004 hearing, Monica Byrne-Henry filed her Motion to Determine Defendant's Entitlement to Taxable Costs claiming Hertz's motion for costs was not served timely and, therefore, Hertz was barred from claiming taxable costs. She argued at the hearing that Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525 requires Hertz to serve its motion only after the actual service of the notice of voluntary dismissal and prior to the running of thirty days after such service. As Hertz served its motion after the oral notice of voluntary dismissal, but before the service of the written notice, and had not re-served within thirty days after Monica Byrne-Henry's service of her notice of voluntary dismissal, Hertz had not timely served and was, therefore, barred from claiming costs. The trial court denied the motion and issued an order stating that Hertz had timely served and was entitled to costs.

Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525 states as follows:

Rule 1.525. Motions for Costs and Attorneys' Fees

Any party seeking a judgment taxing costs, attorneys' fees, or both shall serve a motion within thirty days after filing of the judgment, including a judgment of dismissal, or the service of a notice of voluntary dismissal.

Monica Byrne-Henry claims Rule 1.525 entitles a party to costs only if the party serves his motion after the service of the written notice of voluntary dismissal and before thirty days after such service. Only if the motion for costs is served within that time frame may a party be entitled, under the rule, to costs. Hertz argues the rule should not be so narrowly interpreted and that the intent of the rule was met when Hertz served its motion to tax costs after the oral announcement in court of a voluntary dismissal, but two days prior to the actual service of the notice of voluntary dismissal.

The Florida Supreme Court adopted Rule 1.525 in 2000, to establish "the time for serving motions for attorneys' fees and costs." Amendments to the Fla. Rules of Civil Procedure, 773 So.2d 1098, 1098 (Fla.2000). The rule, requiring a thirty-day time limitation for the service of a motion, was promulgated to end the confusion concerning the prior requirement that motions for fees and costs had to be served within a "reasonable time" after final judgment. See Shipley...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Barco v. School Bd. of Pinellas County
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • 7 Febrero 2008
    ...courts of appeal in Martin Daytona Corp. v. Strickland Construction Services, 941 So.2d 1220 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006), Byrne-Henry v. Hertz Corp., 927 So.2d 66 (Fla. 3d DCA), review dismissed, 945 So.2d 1289 (Fla. 2006), Swift v. Wilcox, 924 So.2d 885 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), review denied, 949 So.2......
  • Martin Daytona v. Strickland Const. Serv.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 17 Noviembre 2006
    ...a motion for attorneys' fees and costs and that motions served prior to entry of the judgment were timely. See Byrne-Henry v. Hertz Corp., 927 So.2d 66, 68 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Swift v. Wilcox, 924 So.2d 885, 887 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) ("[W]e hold that Rule 1.525 `establishes the latest point a......
  • Nader + Museu I, LLLP v. Miami Dade Coll., No. 3D19-1427
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 22 Julio 2020
    ...the confusion concerning the prior requirement that [such] motions ... be served within a ‘reasonable time,’ " Byrne-Henry v. Hertz Corp., 927 So. 2d 66, 68 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006), as well as to prevent "prejudice and unfair surprise" to the losing party. Amerus Life Ins. Co. v. Lait, 2 So. 3d ......
  • Shoppes of Liberty City, LLC v. Sotolongo
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 7 Junio 2006
    ...to recovery under the pertinent rule. As the appellees concede, the Kuvin case alone requires reversal. See also Byrne-Henry v. Hertz Corp., 927 So.2d 66 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Swift v. Wilcox, 924 So.2d 885 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Mills v. Martinez, 909 So.2d 340 (Fla. 5th DCA Accordingly, the o......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT