## Facts

- The Florida Department of Transportation (DOT) brought an eminent-domain action against Southtrust Bank.
- A stipulated final judgment was entered on April 8, 2003.
- On May 30, 2003, Southtrust served a motion to tax expert witness fees and costs and a motion to enlarge time to serve that motion.
- Southtrust supported enlargement with an affidavit explaining the motion had been prepared within the 30-day period but, due to a secretary’s oversight, was not filed or served until late May.
- DOT moved to strike the motion to tax as untimely under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525 (30 days after judgment).
- The trial court found excusable neglect, granted the enlargement, and entered orders taxing expert witness fees and costs, including supplemental amounts incurred in establishing entitlement.
- DOT filed consolidated appeals challenging the enlargement order and the cost/fee awards.

## Issues

1. Whether the 30-day service deadline in Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525 is a strict bar that cannot be extended, even upon a showing of excusable neglect under Rule 1.090(b).
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by finding excusable neglect and considering an otherwise untimely motion to tax expert witness fees and costs.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the order enlarging time.
- The appellate court affirmed the orders taxing expert witness fees and costs, including supplemental fees and costs.
- The court held the trial court could extend the Rule 1.525 deadline under Rule 1.090(b) upon a proper showing of excusable neglect.
- The court concluded the secretary’s sworn explanation provided an adequate basis for the trial court’s excusable-neglect finding and that there was no abuse of discretion.

## Legal Principles

- Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525 requires service of a motion for fees or costs no later than 30 days after filing of the judgment or similar order.
- Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.090(b) permits enlargement of an expired time period when the failure to act resulted from excusable neglect.
- A trial court may treat the Rule 1.525 deadline as subject to enlargement under Rule 1.090(b) when excusable neglect is established.
- A trial court’s determination of excusable neglect and its management of post-judgment cost proceedings are reviewed for abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the trial court’s extension of the 30-day period for serving a motion to tax costs and expert witness fees, holding that a supported finding of excusable neglect under Rule 1.090(b) allows enlargement notwithstanding Rule 1.525’s service deadline.


State Dep’t of Transp. v. Southtrust Bank, 886 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)