Background
Attorney James J. Macchitelli sought certiorari review of a postjudgment sanctions order entered by the Hillsborough County Circuit Court on June 25, 2025. The appellate court treated the certiorari proceeding as a direct appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.040(c).
The sanctions order included a determination that attorney’s fees and costs were recoverable, but the trial court had not yet fixed their amount. Macchitelli challenged both that entitlement determination and the remainder of the sanctions order.
The Court’s Holding
The Second District dismissed the portion of the appeal challenging entitlement to attorney’s fees and costs. Because the trial court had not determined the amount, that aspect of the order was not yet appealable, leaving the appellate court without jurisdiction to review it.
The court affirmed the sanctions order in all other respects. Its disposition was therefore “affirmed in part; dismissed in part.”
Key Takeaways
- An appellate court may treat an improperly styled certiorari proceeding as a direct appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.040(c).
- An order determining entitlement to attorney’s fees and costs generally is not appealable until the trial court sets the amount.
- The court affirmed the remaining portions of the postjudgment sanctions order.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that a fee-entitlement ruling does not become reviewable merely because it appears in an otherwise challenged sanctions order. Litigants ordinarily must wait until the trial court determines the amount before seeking appellate review of the fee award.
It also illustrates the appellate court’s authority to recharacterize a proceeding filed under the wrong review mechanism when the matter can properly be treated as a direct appeal.