Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Family Law Procedure
What is the deadline to file a motion requesting reimbursement of costs in a Florida family law case? In a recent appellate case, the decision by the trial court to apply a “reasonable time” standard in deciding if a motion to tax costs was timely was reviewed. The case is Mollerstrom v. Zambrana, 4D22-2670 (Fla. 4th DCA August 30, 2023).
The father in this case filed a motion to tax costs against the mother after the case was involuntarily dismissed. The father filed his motion 19 days after the involuntary dismissal was entered. The trial court denied it on the basis that “the father’s ‘wait[ing] until July 25, 2022 to file his Motion to Tax Costs’ was ‘unreasonable under the facts and circumstances of this case.’” The father appealed.
The appellate court noted that Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.420(c) provides: “Costs. Costs shall be assessed, except that the court may not require the payment of costs of a previously dismissed claim, which was based on or included the same claim against the same adverse party as the current action.” The court noted the rule applies to involuntary and voluntary dismissals as stated in the Third District Court’s analysis of this rule in the case Helinski v. Helinski, 305 So. 3d 703 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020): “As can be seen, both provisions are couched in mandatory language. And as the Florida Supreme Court recognized in construing the civil counterpart: ‘Rule 1.420(d) is unambiguous—costs are to be assessed in the action that is the subject of the … dismissal ....’ Wilson v. Rose Printing Co., Inc., 624 So. 2d 257, 258 (Fla. 1993).”
The appellate court agreed with the father and held “Based on the above reasoning, the Third District in Helinski ‘agree[d] [with the former wife] that [her] supplemental request for costs, filed following th[e] [former husband’s] voluntary dismissal, and the application of rule 12.420(c), control[led] ….’ Id. at 710. Accordingly, the Third District ‘reverse[d] … the order denying the former wife’s motion for costs, and remand[ed] for a hearing to assess taxable costs pursuant to rule 12.420(c) and for further proceedings ….’ Id. Here, although the circuit court entered an involuntary, rather than a voluntary, dismissal, the same reasoning applies. See id. at 709 (‘Rule 12.420, entitled ‘Dismissal of Actions,’ establishes the procedures to be followed for voluntary and involuntary dismissals of actions ….’).”
The court also found the father’s filing of the motion within 20 days of the dismissal to be reasonable (and rejected the trial court’s reasoning that the father should have requested costs when he filed a motion previously regarding child hearsay to put the mother on notice he would be seeking costs). Schedule your meeting with a Miami family law attorney to understand how the law may apply to the facts of your case.