bright-line time requirement in Florida

2026Bd. of Pinellas Cnty., 975 So. 2d 1116 , 1124 n.4 (Fla. 2008)); see also Saia Motor Freight Line, Inc. v. Reid, 930 So. 2d 598, 600 (Fla. 2006) ("When we adopted rule 1.525, effective January 1, 2001, we established a bright-line time requirement for motions for costs and attorney fees which the Rules of Civil Procedure had not previously contained.").

2025Rule 1.525 provides that "[a]ny party seeking a judgment taxing costs, attorneys' fees, or both shall serve a motion no later than 30 days after filing of the judgment." Our supreme court adopted this rule decades ago to "establish[] a bright-line time requirement for motions for costs and attorney fees." Saia Motor Freight Line, Inc. v. Reid, 930 So. 2d 598, 600 (Fla. 2006).

2024As explained by our sister court in Diaz v. Bowen, 832 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), rule 1.525 “establish[ed] a bright-line rule to resolve the uncertainty surrounding the timing of these posttrial motions[.]” Id. at 201 ; see also AmerUs, 2 So. 3d at 205 (“As the committee notes to rule 1.525 state, the new rule ‘[was] intended to establish a time requirement to serve motions for costs and attorneys’ fees.’” (alteration in original) (quoting Fla. R.

2006When we adopted rule 1.525, effective January 1, 2001, we established a bright-line time requirement for motions for costs and attorney fees which the Rules of Civil Procedure had not previously contained. [3] Judge Altenbernd correctly made this point stating, in Diaz v. Bowen, 832 So.2d 200, 201 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), that "[r]ule 1.525 was created to establish a bright-line rule to resolve the uncertainty surrounding the timing of these posttrial motions," and in Gulf Landings, 845 So.2d at 346 , "It is no longer enough for parties to plead a basis for fees in their pretrial pleadings." We agr

2007Recently, in Saia Motor Freight Line, Inc. v. Reid, 930 So.2d 598 (Fla.2006), the supreme court described rule 1.525 as establishing "a bright-line time requirement for motions for costs and attorney fees." Wilson v. Salamon, 923 So.2d 363 (Fla.2005) interpreted rule 1.420(e) by its "plain meaning" to "further the purpose of decreasing litigation over the purpose of the rule and fostering the smooth administration of the trial court's docket." Id. at 158.

2007The goal is to "strictly construe provisions to create rules that are clear-cut and easy to apply." Stowe, 937 So.2d at 158 ; see also Saia Motor Freight Line, Inc., 930 So.2d at 600 (describing rule 1.525 as establishing "a bright-line time requirement for motions for costs and attorney fees"); Wilson v. Salamon, 923 So.2d 363, 367 (Fla. 2005) (interpreting rule 1.420(e) "by its plain meaning" to "further the purpose of decreasing litigation over the purpose of the rule and fostering the smooth administration of the trial court's docket"); Lamb v. Matetzschk, 906 So.2d 1037 (Fla. 2005) (adopt

2025The purpose of the rule was twofold: "to cure the 'evil' of uncertainty created by tardy motions for fees and costs," and "to eliminate the prejudice that tardy motions cause to both the opposing party and the trial court." AmerUs, 2 So. 3d at 205–06 (quoting Barco v. Sch.

2024Co. v. Lait, 2 So. 3d 203 (Fla. 2009) to avoid the thirty-day filing requirement).

2024See Saia Motor Freight Line, Inc. v. Reid, 930 So. 2d 598, 600 (Fla. 2006) (recognizing that Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525 “establishe[s] a bright-line time requirement for motions for costs and attorney fees”); Hovercraft of S. Fla., LLC v. Reynolds, 211 So. 3d 1073, 1076 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) (holding that a reservation of jurisdiction to award fees does not determine fee entitlement under AmerUs Life Ins.

2014By adopting Rule 1.525, the Florida Supreme Court sought to “establish[] a bright-line time requirement for motions for costs and attorney fees which the Rules of Civil Procedure had not previously contained.” Saia Motor Freight Line, Inc. v. Reid, 930 So. 2d 598, 600 (Fla. 2006) (footnote omitted); Borroto v. Garcia, 103 So. 3d 186, 188 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012).

2014By adopting Rule 1.525, the Florida Supreme Court sought to “establish! ] a bright-line time requirement for motions for costs and attorney fees which the Rules of Civil Procedure had not previously contained.” Saia Motor Freight Line, Inc. v. Reid, 930 So.2d 598, 600 (Fla.2006) (footnote omitted); Barroto v. Garcia, 103 So.3d 186, 188 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012).

2009Judge Altenbernd correctly made this point stating, in Diaz v. Bowen, 832 So.2d 200, 201 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), that “[r]ule 1.525 was created to establish a bright-line rule to resolve the uncertainty surrounding the timing of these posttrial motions,” and in Gulf Landings [Ass’n, Inc. v. Hershberger, 845 So.2d 344, 346 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) ], “It is no longer enough for parties to plead a basis for fees in their pretrial pleadings.” We agree.

2009Judge Altenbernd correctly made this point stating, in Diaz v. Bowen, 832 So.2d 200, 201 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), that "[r]ule 1.525 was created to establish a bright-line rule to resolve the uncertainty surrounding the timing of these posttrial motions," and in Gulf Landings [Ass'n, Inc. v. Hershberger, 845 So.2d 344, 346 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)], "It is no longer enough for parties to plead a basis for fees in their pretrial pleadings." We agree.