Summary
The Sixth District Court of Appeal of Florida affirmed the trial court’s ruling on a motion to tax costs following the voluntary dismissal of claims concerning an incapacitated person. The court held that the appellants failed to challenge all grounds supporting the denial of certain expert- and treating-witness costs and clarified that the guardian was not held personally liable for the assessed costs.
Holdings
- The defendants abandoned the challenge by failing to address each reason supporting the trial court's ruling in their initial brief; therefore, the unchallenged reason independently supported the ruling.
- The costs order did not impose personal liability on McCloud; it expressly recognized that the guardian was not personally liable for the costs.
Questions Presented
- Whether the defendants preserved their challenge to the trial court's rejection of treating-witness and expert-witness costs when they failed to address every reason supporting that ruling in their initial brief.
- Whether the trial court's order on costs imposed personal liability on McCloud, as guardian of T.B.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (4)
- Davis v. State, 153 So. 3d 399, 401 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)(followed)
- Prince v. State, 40 So. 3d 11, 13 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)(followed)
- Hoskins v. State, 75 So. 3d 250, 257 (Fla. 2011)(followed)
- Askar v. Abo, 411 So. 3d 449 (Fla. 6th DCA 2024)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…