Areas of Expertise

CHAPTER 2007-334
Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 22-C

An act relating to the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services; amending s. 501.95, F.S., relating to gift certificates and credit memos; limiting application of prohibitions to purchased instruments; providing for enforcement by the department; providing for  retroactive application; providing an effective date. Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:

CHAPTER 2007-325
Council Substitute for House Bill No. 15-C

An act relating to a public records exemption; creating s. 324.242, F.S.; creating a public records exemption for certain information regarding personal injury protection and property damage liability insurance policies held by the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles; authorizing conditional release of confidential and exempt information to specified persons; providing for retroactive application of the exemption; providing for future review and repeal of the exemption; providing a statement of public necessity; providing a contingent effective date.

CHAPTER 2007-323
Council Substitute for House Bill No. 1-C

An act relating to property taxes; amending s. 200.185, F.S.; changing the time a municipality must have been in a state of financial emergency to be considered a municipality of special financial concern; providing for calculating maximum millage rates for 2008-2009 fiscal year for certain municipalities; providing an effective date. Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:

CHAPTER 2009-19 Senate Bill No. 1280

An act relating to the official Florida Statutes; amending ss. 11.2421, 11.2422, 11.2424, and 11.2425, F.S.; adopting the Florida Statutes 2009 and designating the portions thereof that are to constitute the official law of the state; providing that the Florida Statutes 2009 shall be effective immediately upon publication; providing that general laws enacted during the 2008 regular session and prior thereto and not included in the Florida Statutes 2009 are repealed; providing that general laws enacted during the January 5-14, 2009, special session and the 2009 regular session are not repealed by this adoption act.

CHAPTER 2009-18 Senate Bill No. 1112
An act relating to the corporate income tax; amending s. 220.03, F.S.; deleting certain provisions relating to federal amendments to federal law dealing with bonus depreciation for purposes of adjusted federal income and corporate income tax liability; amending s. 220.13, F.S.; deleting certain adjustments to federal income; specifying the treatment by this state of certain depreciation and expensing of assets that are allowed for federal income tax purposes; requiring the Department of Revenue to compromise certain penalties and interest under certain circumstances; specifying application; authorizing the department to adopt emergency rules for certain administrative purposes; providing for retroactive operation; providing an effective date.

Ideally, this article will be utilized frequently by our readers in the near future. You have battled the adjuster, the defense attorney, the judge, and the jury and won a victory for your client; and to the victor goes the spoils. Hopefully, you filed a proposal for settlement entitling you to fees, but regardless, as the prevailing party, you are entitled to reimbursement of your reasonable costs.
Pursuant to Florida Statute 57.041, a prevailing party is entitled to reimbursement of costs as follows:

1.The party recovering judgment shall recover all his or her legal costs and charges which shall be included in the judgment; but this section does not apply to executors or administrators and actions when they are not liable for costs.

2.Costs may be collected by execution on the judgment or order assessing costs.

The main guidance we have as far as what is a recoverable cost is provided in the Statewide Uniform Guidelines for Taxation of Costs in Civil Actions, which were originally adopted on October 28, 1981, and set out in full in Reeser v. Boats Unlimited, Inc., 432 So. 2d 1346 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). Unfortunately, these Guidelines will lead you down an disheartening path, as they generally are very restrictive regarding what qualifies as a recoverable cost. Thankfully, the Guidelines are meant as “guidelines” and the trial court may deviate from them if justice requires under the facts of a particular case. Madison v. Midland National Life Insurance Company, 648 So. 2d 1226, 1228 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). There are dozens of cases defining what are recoverable costs that are exceedingly more liberal and explanatory than the Guidelines. The items addressed below are far from comprehensive, but certainly addresses a number of scenarios that frequently arise during litigation.

As a general rule, a cost item is taxable where it can be shown to relate to matters that serve a “useful purpose” in the litigation process and is directly related to the trial or the development of a party’s case. See Schumacher v. Wellman, 415 So. 2d 120, 122, (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) and Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Vote, 463 So. 2d 459, 460 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1985). In determining the taxability of the cost item, the Court is to consider the reasonableness of the amount and the necessity of the item. See Keener v. Dunning, 238 So. 2d 113, 114 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970).

A deficiency judgment is a filing from the bank against a homeowner or borrower that has gone through foreclosure. The filing is for the amount of money that the bank lost because of the foreclosure. This fee is calculated by taking the unpaid loan balance and subtracting the property value from that amount. The unpaid loan balance includes unpaid interest, any fees the bank advanced like taxes and insurance, attorney fees, and costs such as filing fees associated with the foreclosure.

Many people ask, “How can I avoid a deficiency judgment?” and the answer is this: The only way to avoid a deficiency judgment is if the property were sold at a foreclosure sale. However, because most properties are not sold at the foreclosure sale, the bank ends up stuck with the property.  That is where this gets interesting…

Once the bank ends up with property, the bank needs to have a hearing before the judge within a set period of time . At that hearing, called a valuation hearing, the bank needs to provide evidence of the diminished value of the property. Here, the borrower is free to show that the bank improperly valued the property and that there is no deficiency due or a smaller outstanding amount.

Should the court determine that a deficiency is due, the court will enter a judgment against the borrower, which is good for 10 years and can also be renewed by the bank for an additional 10 years. Frequently, banks sell these judgments in bulk to hedge funds or investors that include collection agencies and law firms that specialize in collecting on consumer debt.