I

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ITTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COI.'NTY, FLORIDA

CITY OF HOLLYWOOD, FLORIDA a Municipal Corporation Organized & Existing under the Laws of the State of Florida
Plaintiff,
vs.

CASE NO.: Lt-0t6210 (18)

HON. MICHELE TOWBTN STNGER

Steven Kohn Defendant.

I
ORDER ON DEFENDAI\T'S MOTION TO DISMISS AI\ID FOR COSTS AI\ID FEES THIS CAUSE came before the cotrt on Defendant Steven Kohn's Motion to Dismiss
pursuant to Rule 1.060(c), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and for Costs and Fees pursuant to

section 162.10, Florida Statutes. The court having considered same, being duly advised in
premises and law, dispenses with oral argument and finds and decides as follows:

The City of Hollyvood (*Plaintiff') filed its Complaint against Steve,n Kohn seeking to collect the Order of Imposition of Fine and Claim of Lien cntered by a Special Master of the City

of Hollynvood, finding Steven Kohn in violation of section 92.02(A) of the City of Hollyrood
Code of Ondinances. On Nove,mber 14, 2011, this Court e,ntered an order granting without prejudice, Defendant's Motion

to Compel Plaintiff to Amend Complaint to an amount not

exceeding the marimum fine allowable by the ordinance. The Order allowed Plaintiff twenty (20) days to show this Court authority under which Defendant can be fined more than $100 total.

Plaintiff failed to file any authority with the court within twenty days, but filed a Motion for
Rehearing on the Nove,lnber

l4,20ll

Order. On Decemb ff 6,2011, this Court entered its Order

CASE NO.:

tl4t62l0

(18)

("the Transfer Ordef') limiting Plaintiffs damages to $100.00. Since the claim for relief was no

longer within the jurisdictional limits of this Court, the case was transfemed county court.
Defendant now brings its Motion to Dismiss pursuant to rule 1.060(c), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure' for PlaintifPs failure to pay transfer fees.

In support of his Motion, Defendant argues that more than thirty (30) days have elapsed
since the Transfer Order was entered and Plaintiff failed to stay the order pending appeal to the

Fourth District Cotrt of Appeal of Florida. The court agrees. Accordingly, this action must be
I

h
["
I

.lisnrissod-

Next, Defendant argues entitlement to fees and costs pursuant to section 162.10, Florida
Statutes2 as a "prevailing

party''. Generally, the prevailing party is the party that won on the

significant issues in litigation. M.A. Hajianpour, M.D., v. Khosrow Maleki, P.A., 975 So. 2d
1288, 1289 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (citing Moritz v. Hoyt Enters., lnc.,604 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 1992)).

However, a defendant is entitled to fees pursuant to the the prevailing party standard when a

plaintiff fails to firther pursue its claims when the case was dismissed. Frazier v. Dreyftus,
So. 2d 1183, 1185 (Fla. 4th

14

DCA 2009).

ln Frazier, the appellants appealed an order granting attorney's fees in favor of appellee.

Id. at 1183. The appellants, purchasers of thirteen vacatign bungalows in Costa Ricq
into a ontract with appellesrf,ler.

entered

Id.

The appellants later discovered that the property they

purchased was public land allegedly owned by the Costa Rican government. Id. at I 184. The

' 1c; Method. The service charge of the clerk of the court to which an action is transferred under this rule shall be paid by the party who commenced the action within 30 days from the date the order of transfer is entered, subject to taxation as provided by law when the action is determined. If the seryice charge is not paid wittrin the 30 days, the action shall be dismissed without oreiudice by the court that entered the order of transfer. or nen - No tien proviaed under the Local Government Code Enforcement Boards Act shall continue for a period longer than 20 years after the certified copy of an order imposing a fine has been recorded, unless within that time an action is commenced pursuant to s. 162.09(3) in a court of competent jtrisdiction. In an action to foreclose on a lien or for a money judgment, the prevailing party is entitled to recover all costs, including reasonable attorney's fee, that it inctrs in an action...

' roz.rT5ffin

Page 2 of 4

I
I

CASE No.: l1-016210 (18) buyers then brought suit against appellee. Id. at 1183. [n response, appellee filed a motion to dismiss based on a provision in the contract mandating the arbitration Costa Rican-American Chamber

of disputes before the

of Commrce in

Costa

Rica. Id. at 1184. The trial court

entered an order compelling the arbitration and abated the action.

Id. The appellants

elected not

to arbitrate their claims because of the expense associated with the retention of counsel in Costa

Rica. Id. The appellee moved to dismiss the suit for failtre to comply with the court orders
requiring arbitration and moved for prevailing party attorney's fees.
fismisscd fre action

Id.

The trial court

aurrded ftes, hotding

fttr fiEndless of ufrether

or not the buyers etter

instituted arbitration proceedings in Costa Rica or othenvise decided not to pursue their claims,
the seller prevailed in the action when the case was dismissed. Id. at I 184-5 (applyrng reasoning of Alhambra Homeowners Ass'n v. Asad,943 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)). Since this Cotrt

found the amount in controversy must be limited to $ 100, jurisdiction was no longer within this

Court. For whatever reason, Plaintiff has failed to pursue its claim in county court.

Regardless

of whether Plaintiff prevails in county court, Defendant prevailed on this action upon dismissal. Accordingly, costs and fees are appropriate for Defendant as a prevailing pafiy.

This Court acknowledges that the authority provided within Plaintiffs Motion for
Rehearing was heard before the Fourth District Court of Appeal of Florida, which dismissed the issus on its merits.3 Aeordingly, Plaintiffs Motion for Rehearing is moot. Neverttreless, this

Court finds that a Motion for Rehearing is an improper motion on a non-final order. See Wagner
v. Bieley, Wagner

&

Assocs.,

fnc.,263 So. 2d l, 3 (Fla. lgTZ).

It is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs Complaint is DISMISSED

WITIIOUT PREJUDICE.
Case No.: 4Dl2-12. The Fourth District Court of Appeal of Florida issued its order on February 16,21l1stating: ORDERED that the petition for writ of certiorari filed January 5, 2012, is hereby denied oo thr merits without prejudice to raising on final appeal.
3

Page 3

of 4

CASE NO.: I l-016210 (18)

It is funher ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Costs and Fees Pursuant to section
162.10, Florida Statutes

is GRANTED. This Court resrves jurisdiction to

detrrnine the

amount of Defendant's Fees and Costs.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, Fort Lauderdale, Florida

2012.

this

day of April

IIIICHTI.E TOII/BIN SII{GER

HON. MICHELE TOWB CIRCUIT COURT G

Copiesfuuighod to: Steve Kohn, 3841 N. 5l$ Avenue, Hollpvood, Florida330}l Stacey S. Fisher, Esq., 277 5 Sunny Isles Blvd., Suite 100, Miami, Florida

33 160-4007

a>'.+-:

}*ii;:a-t:

Page 4 of 4