Travelers Commercial Ins. Co. v. Harrington
Decision Date | 26 February 2016 |
Docket Number | 1D15–3480.,Nos. 1D15–1121,s. 1D15–1121 |
Citation | 187 So.3d 879 |
Parties | TRAVELERS COMMERCIAL INSURANCE COMPANY, An Affiliate of Travelers Insurance Co., and Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, Appellants, v. Crystal Marie HARRINGTON, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James P. Waczewski, of Luks, Santaniello, Petrillo & Jones, Tallahassee, for Appellants.
Stephen C. Bullock, of Brannon Brown Haley & Bullock, P.A., Lake City, for Appellee.
We have for review two consolidated appeals both arising from two orders, each denying appellants' motions to vacate judgments awarding "prevailing party" appellate attorneys' fees to appellee, Crystal Harrington. For the following reasons, we reverse.
In 2012 this Court affirmed in part and reversed in part a final summary judgment favorable to appellee involving the stacking of uninsured motorist benefits and the amount of benefits recoverable by her, while certifying two questions to the Florida Supreme Court regarding those issues. See Travelers Commercial Ins. Co. v. Harrington, 86 So.3d 1274, 1278 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (Travelers I ). In addition, we granted appellee's motion for "prevailing party" attorneys' fees pursuant to section 627.428, Florida Statutes, and remanded the case to the trial court to determine the amount. Our mandate issued on May 10, 2012. Travelers Commercial Insurance Company ("Travelers" or "appellant") did not move to stay the mandate but, instead, petitioned the Florida Supreme Court to review our decision.
On August 24, 2012, while review was pending in the supreme court, the trial court entered a final judgment against Travelers for appellate attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $147,805.00. Travelers did not seek review of the fee judgment in this Court by way of Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.400(c), but did file a "Motion to Stay Enforcement of Judgment," pending review of Travelers I by the supreme court. The trial court granted a temporary stay, giving Travelers time to post a bond to effectuate an automatic stay under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(b). Travelers complied with the bond requirement, which was issued by Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America ("the Surety" or "appellant"). A few months later, appellee filed an emergency motion seeking to terminate the stay and collect on the bond. The trial court granted the motion, directing the immediate release of the bond in the court's registry to appellee's attorneys, and imposed a second judgment requiring the Surety to pay fees and costs by then totaling $150,613.30. In the meantime, the Florida Supreme Court granted Travelers' "Emergency Motion to Stay Further Proceedings, to Stay Enforcement of Appellate Fees Orders, and to Recall Mandate," thereby staying all proceedings before the trial court and this Court pending disposition of Travelers' petition for review. After Travelers filed its initial brief, however, the supreme court entered an order requesting supplemental briefs from the parties addressing the following question:
Travelers filed its supplemental brief in which it asserted that were it to prevail before the supreme court, it could afterward obtain relief from the fee judgment in the trial court by motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(5). Appellee filed a motion asking the supreme court to lift the stay and allow enforcement of the judgment, urging that by vacating the stay to allow execution of the "non-appealed Final Judgment Awarding Reasonable Appellate Attorney's Fees, [Travelers'] rights under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540(b)(5), if any, are preserved. " (Emphasis added.)
On October 23, 2014, the Florida Supreme Court issued its opinion in Travelers Commercial Insurance Co. v. Harrington, 154 So.3d 1106 (Fla.2014) (Travelers II ), answering the certified questions and consequently quashing Travelers I. It did not, however, address the question which had been the subject of the supplemental briefs. Instead, per appellee's motion, the supreme court ruled:
(Emphasis added.) The supreme court's Mandate to this Court—commanding "that further proceedings be had in accordance with said opinion"—issued on February 2, 2015.
On January 15, 2015, prior to the issuance of the supreme court's mandate in Travelers II, but because of the supreme court's decision to lift the stay, appellants filed their "Emergency Motion to Vacate Appellate–Fee Judgments Pursuant to Rule 1.540(b)(5)," seeking to vacate the original and second appellate fees judgments based on the supreme court's quashal of Travelers I on which the award of the fees was premised. On February 11, 2015, the trial court entered an order denying appellants' emergency motion. Appellants appealed the order to this court in the first of these consolidated appeals, appellate court case number 1D15–1121. In addition, on remand of Travelers I, Travelers also filed an emergency motion to vacate this Court's original order awarding appellee the prevailing party appellate attorneys' fees, as well as the resulting fees judgments. On April 2, 2015, in Travelers I, this Court entered an order on Travelers' emergency motion to vacate, stating:
Also on April 2, 2015, we entered an Order on Mandate, setting aside our opinion in Travelers I and ordering that the opinion of the supreme court filed on October 23, 2014, "replace this Court's opinion and accompany the mandate of this Court to the Circuit Court for Columbia County." Our mandate issued that same day.
Thereafter, in appellate court case number 1D15–1121 ( ), appellants moved this Court to relinquish jurisdiction for thirty days so they could pursue a second motion to vacate the attorneys' fees judgments based on the above-quoted order entered on remand in Travelers I. They pointed out that the trial court's order on appeal in appellate court case number 1D15–1121 was premised on the fact that it could not disturb our initial decision to award prevailing party appellate attorneys' fees, as Travelers failed to seek review of the fee order via Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.400(c). On May 12, 2015, this Court issued the following order:
Appellants' motion to relinquish jurisdiction filed April 10, 2015, is granted, and jurisdiction is hereby relinquished to the lower tribunal through and until June 12, 2015, for the purpose of considering appellants' second motion to vacate appellate fee judgments. At the end of the relinquishment period, jurisdiction shall automatically revest with this court. On or before June 19, 2015, appellants shall file a status report advising of the need for further proceedings herein.
Appellants filed a second motion to vacate in the trial court. On July 13, 2015, the trial court entered its "Order Denying Defendants' Second Motion to Vacate Appellate Fee Judgments." The trial court gave the following reasons to explain its ruling:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Schmidt v. Nipper
...due to a change in the circumstances. This is a pure question of law to be reviewed de novo. Travelers Commercial Ins. Co. v. Harrington , 187 So. 3d 879, 884 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016). To seek relief pursuant to rule 1.540(b)(5) or 12.540(b)(5), an appellant must show that there are new circumst......
-
Karp v. Chalker (In re Estate of Chalker)
... ... and appeal not necessary); Travelers Com. Ins. Co. v ... Harrington, 187 So.3d 879, 885 (Fla. Dist. Ct ... ...
-
Cleveland v. Crown Fin., LLC
...Id. A trial court's ruling on a rule 1.540 motion is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Travelers Commercial Ins. Co. v. Harrington , 187 So.3d 879, 884 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) ; see also Leach v. Salehpour , 19 So.3d 342, 344 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (explaining the same and that a ruling on a rul......
-
90 Cwelt-2008 LLC v. Yacht Club at Portofino Condo. Ass'n, Inc.
...vacated ...."). See also Austin v. B.J. Apparel Corp., 523 So.2d 675 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) ; Travelers Commercial Ins. Co. v. Harrington, 187 So.3d 879 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) ; Nationsbanc Mortg. Corp. v. Gardens North Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 764 So.2d 883 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). CWELT has not and canno......