Background
Attorney Sheldon D. McMullen and Sarah K. Sussman sought certiorari review of a June 25, 2025, postjudgment sanctions order from the Hillsborough County Circuit Court. McMullen had represented Sussman in the trial court and represented her in the appellate proceeding.
The petitioners challenged, among other matters, the trial court’s finding that the respondents were entitled to attorney’s fees and costs. The trial court had not yet set the amount of those fees and costs.
The Court’s Holding
The Second District treated the certiorari petition as a direct appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.040(c). It dismissed the challenge to entitlement to attorney’s fees and costs for lack of jurisdiction because an order determining entitlement but leaving the amount unresolved is not yet appealable.
The court otherwise affirmed the sanctions order. It also reminded McMullen of a Florida lawyer’s continuing duty of candor during an appeal, including the obligation to alert the court to developments that could affect the case or raise mootness concerns.
Key Takeaways
- An appellate court may treat a certiorari proceeding as a direct appeal when appropriate.
- A fee-and-cost entitlement ruling is not appealable until the trial court determines the amount.
- The sanctions order was affirmed to the extent the court had jurisdiction to review it.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the finality requirement for appellate review of attorney-fee rulings: parties generally must wait until the trial court fixes the amount before appealing entitlement. It also underscores counsel’s ongoing duty to disclose material developments while an appeal is pending.