Dade County v. Pena
Decision Date | 14 December 1995 |
Docket Number | No. 85023,85023 |
Citation | 664 So.2d 959 |
Parties | 20 Fla. L. Weekly S593 DADE COUNTY, etc., Petitioner, v. Humberto PENA, Respondent. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Robert A. Ginsburg, Dade County Attorney and John McInnis, Assistant County Attorney, Miami, for Petitioner.
Phillip J. Goldstein of the Law Offices of Phillip J. Goldstein, P.A., Miami, for Respondent.
We have for review Pena v. Dade County, 648 So.2d 1199(Fla. 3d DCA1994), in which the Third District Court of Appeal certified conflict with the opinions in Werthman v. School Board of Seminole County, 599 So.2d 220(Fla. 5th DCA1992)andDavis v. School Board of Gadsden County, 646 So.2d 766(Fla. 1st DCA1994).We have jurisdiction.Art. V, Sec. 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.
The Third District Court of Appeal held that Humberto Pena was entitled to attorney's fees under section 448.08, Florida Statutes(1985), for his appeal to an administrative board, where he successfully petitioned for reinstatement as a county bus operator.Because Pena's administrative appeal was not an "action for back wages" as explicitly required by section 448.08, we quash the decision below.
Pena was dismissed from his job as a bus operator for Metropolitan Dade County's Metro Dade Transit Agency(MDTA) after his bus struck a pedestrian and a parked car, and post-accident toxicology tests revealed the presence of a tranquilizer in his blood.Pursuant to section 2-47, Code of Metropolitan Dade County, Pena appealed his dismissal to the County Manager.
The County Manager accepted the hearing officer's recommendation that Pena's dismissal be reduced to a thirty-day suspension: he reinstated Pena as a bus driver and ordered back pay for the period between his dismissal and subsequent reinstatement, less thirty days for the suspension.When Pena and MDTA were unable to agree on the amount of back pay owed, Pena filed an action in circuit court seeking not only a determination of the amount of back pay owed, but also attorney's fees for the circuit court action and for fees incurred in the administrative appeal of the disciplinary action.
Court-ordered mediation resulted in an agreement as to the amount of back pay owed.The court determined that section 448.08 entitled Pena to attorney's fees for the action at law, but not for the administrative appeal.
On appeal, the Third District Court of Appeal reversed the circuit court's order and held that section 448.08 also applied to the administrative proceeding which resulted in Pena's reinstatement.The district court relied on its earlier decision in Metropolitan Dade County v. Stein, 384 So.2d 167(Fla. 3d DCA1980), but certified direct conflict with Werthman v. School Board, 599 So.2d 220(Fla. 5th DCA1992), andDavis v. School Board, 646 So.2d 766(Fla. 1st DCA1994), on this issue.
This Court follows the "American Rule" that attorney's fees may only be awarded by a court pursuant to an entitling statute or an agreement of the parties.SeeFlorida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145, 1148(Fla.1985), modified, Standard Guar. Ins. Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So.2d 828(Fla.1990).The statute Pena relies upon in the instant case provides: "The court may award to the prevailing party in an action for unpaid wages costs of the action and a reasonable attorney's fee."Sec. 448.08,Fla.Stat.(1985).
A general rule of statutory construction in Florida is that courts should not depart from the plain and unambiguous language of the statute.Citizens of State v. Public Serv. Comm'n, 425 So.2d 534, 541-42(Fla.1982).Moreover, it is also a well-established rule in Florida that "statutes awarding attorney's fees must be strictly construed."Gershuny v. Martin McFall Messenger Anesthesia Professional Ass'n, 539 So.2d 1131, 1132(Fla.1989).
Both of the cases cited by the district court as conflicting dealt with administrative proceedings to overturn terminations within a public school setting.Werthman, which was explicitly followed by Davis, held that "termination proceedings brought by a...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Walker v. Cash Register Auto Ins.
...section 57.105 fees is reviewed pursuant to an abuse of discretion standard. See Gahn v. Holiday Prop. Bond, Ltd., 826 So.2d 423 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Generally speaking, attorney's fees statutes should be strictly construed. See, e.g., Dade County v. Pena,
664 So.2d 959Section 57.105 authorizes an award of attorney's fees to be paid in equal measure by a losing party and that losing party's counsel when counsel knew or should have known that a claim or defense when initially... -
Durden v. Citicorp Trust Bank
...its own attorneys' fees unless a contract or statute provides otherwise.” United States v. Pepper's Steel & Alloys, Inc., 289 F.3d 741, 742 (11th Cir.2002) (per curiam) (citation omitted); see also
Dade County v. Pena, 664 So.2d 959, 960 (Fla.1995). Plaintiff brought his FSIPA claim pursuant to Florida Statutes sections 517.301(1)(a) and 517.211(2). See Complaint at 5–7; see also E.F. Hutton & Co., Inc. v. Rousseff, 537 So.2d 978, 980–81 (Fla.1989)... -
Coffie v. Bd. of Trustees, Miami-Dade
...recovery--breach of contract and fraud. See Munsey v. General Telephone Co. of Florida, 538 So.2d 1328 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). Unlike in Pena, the instant case was not an attempt to recover expenses incurred in the (pre-trial) administrative hearing of an employee's claims. See
Dade County v. Pena, 664 So.2d 959 (Fla.1995). When it reached the jury, Coffie's claim was strictly one for "back pay" a/k/a "unpaid We vacate that portion of the trial court's judgment denyingdistinguishable. Unlike in Munsey, here the employee proceeded to trial only on common law theories of recovery--breach of contract and fraud. See Munsey v. General Telephone Co. of Florida, 538 So.2d 1328 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). Unlike in Pena, the instant case was not an attempt to recover expenses incurred in the (pre-trial) administrative hearing of an employee's claims. See Dade County v. Pena, 664 So.2d 959 (Fla.1995). When it reached the jury, Coffie's claim was... -
Hechtman v. NATIONS TITLE INS. OF NY., INC.
...thefts under this statute. Where, as here, the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous and conveys a clear and definite meaning, there is no occasion for us to depart from its plain and unambiguous language.
Dade County v. Pena, 664 So.2d 959, 960 (Fla.1995); see also Holly v. Auld, 450 So.2d 217, 219 ("[w]hen the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous and conveys a clear and definite meaning, there is no occasion for resorting to the rules of statutory interpretation...
-
Chapter 16-1 Introduction
...attorney's fees must be strictly construed.4--------Notes:[1] Florida Patient's Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145, 1148 (Fla. 1985); State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Palma, 629 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 1993).[2] Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. v. Wilderness Society, 421 U.S. 240, 249 (1975).[3] Rivera v. Deauville Hotel, Employers Service Corp., 277 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 1973).[4] Dade County v. Pena,
664 So. 2d 959(Fla. 1995); Trytek v. Gale Industries, Inc.,... -
Chapter 17-1 Introduction
...attorney's fees must be strictly construed.4--------Notes:[1] Florida Patient's Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145, 1148 (Fla. 1985); State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Palma, 629 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 1993).[2] Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. v. Wilderness Society, 421 U.S. 240, 249 (1975).[3] Rivera v. Deauville Hotel, Employers Service Corp., 277 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 1973).[4] Dade County v. Pena,
664 So. 2d 959(Fla. 1995); Trytek v. Gale Industries, Inc.,... -
Drafting and analyzing joint proposals for settlement.
...Fielder); Jamieson v. Kurland, 819 So.2d 267 (Fla.2d D.C.A. 2002); Lamb, 30 Fla. L. Weekly $467 (Fla. June 23, 2005). (13) Major League Baseball v. Marsoni, 790 So.2d 1071, 1077-78 (Fla. 2001); Dade County v. Pena,
664 So.2d 959,960 (Fla. 1995); Gershuny v. Martin McFall, 539 So.2d 1131, 1132 (Fla. (14) Allstate Indemnity Co. v. Hingson, 808 So.2d 197, 198 (Fla. 2002); Cohen v. Arvin, 878 So.2d 403; Clipper v. Bay Oaks Condominium...