From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Walgreen Co. v. Sklandis

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Apr 1, 2005
895 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

Summary

affirming the circuit court's taxing under Section 768.79 the cost of an expert not appointed by the court

Summary of this case from Thomas v. Winnebago Indus., Inc.

Opinion

Nos. 3D04-1519, 3D04-751.

February 23, 2005. Rehearing Denied April 1, 2005.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Barbara Levenson, Judge.

Walton Lantaff Schroeder Carson and Robert L. Teitler and Stephanie L. Bandy, Miami, for appellant.

Lauri Waldman Ross and Theresa L. Girten, Miami; Koltun Lazar, Miami, for appellee.

Before COPE, RAMIREZ, and WELLS, JJ.


In this personal injury action, Walgreen Company appeals a final judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of Joseph Sklandis claiming that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to dismiss this action for fraud on the court and for refusing to permit it to introduce documentary evidence of that fraud. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's rulings in either respect and affirm the final judgment.

Walgreen Company also appeals a final judgment awarding attorney's fees and costs to Sklandis pursuant to a proposal for settlement dated February 7, 2002. At oral argument, Sklandis' counsel conceded that the wrong settlement proposal had been used when calculating attorney's fees and costs, and that a proposal dated January 8, 2003, should have been used instead. We agree. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's determination that Sklandis is entitled to an award of fees and costs, including the expert witness fee awarded, but remand with directions to reduce the fee and cost judgment to award fees and costs incurred only after January 8, 2003. See § 768.79(1), Fla. Stat. (2000) (stating that a recovering plaintiff should recover "reasonable costs and attorney's fees incurred from the date of the filing of the demand").

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, remanded with instructions.


Summaries of

Walgreen Co. v. Sklandis

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Apr 1, 2005
895 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

affirming the circuit court's taxing under Section 768.79 the cost of an expert not appointed by the court

Summary of this case from Thomas v. Winnebago Indus., Inc.
Case details for

Walgreen Co. v. Sklandis

Case Details

Full title:WALGREEN COMPANY, Appellant, v. Joseph SKLANDIS, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Apr 1, 2005

Citations

895 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

Citing Cases

Thomas v. Winnebago Indus., Inc.

Unlike 28 U.S.C. § 1920, Section 768.79 contains no implicit or explicit prohibition on taxing the cost of an…

Strait v. Busch Entertainment Corporation

Defendant has submitted documentation to support its request for expert witness fees in the amount of…