THE ESTATE OF CALEB TIMMOTHY ISENBERG, BY AND THROUGH MELANIE VICTORIA MCCULLOUGH, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE, THOMAS GLENN CONYERS, II, BY THROUGH HIS PARENT AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, ETC., ET AL vs SMITH EQUITIES CORPORATION AND GERALD A. SMITH
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED THE ESTATE OF CALEB TIMMOTHY ISENBERG, BY AND THROUGH MELANIE VICTORIA MCCULLOUGH, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE, THOMAS GLENN CONYERS, II, BY AND THROUGH HIS PARENT AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, ETC., ET AL., Appellants, v. Case No. 5D20-285 SMITH EQUITIES CORPORATION AND GERALD A. SMITH, Appellees. ________________________________/ Opinion filed January 8, 2021 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Luis Fernando Calderon, Judge. E. Timothy McCullough, of McCullough & Mitchell, P.A., Windermere, for Appellants. Scott A. Cole, of Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., Miami, for Appellees. PER CURIAM. Appellants, the Estate of Caleb Timmothy Isenberg, by and through Melanie Victoria McCullough, Personal Representative, and T.G.C., II, by and through his parent and natural guardian, Melanie Victoria McCullough, and their counsel, Earl Timothy McCullough (collectively, “Appellants”), appeal the trial court’s second amended final judgment awarding attorneys’ fees and costs against them pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2019), and in favor of the Appellees, Smith Equities Corporation and Gerald A. Smith. We reverse because, as Appellants correctly argue on appeal, Appellees’ motion for fees was untimely pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525 (requiring the motion to be served “no later than 30 days after filing of the judgment” that “concludes the action as to that party”). We decline Appellees’ invitation to create an exception to the rule’s time requirement. Such an exception would be contrary to the plain language of the rule. See Saia Motor Freight Line, Inc. v. Reid, 930 So. 2d 598, 600 (Fla. 2006) (describing rule 1.525 as a “bright-line time requirement”). REVERSED. LAMBERT, EISNAUGLE, and HARRIS, JJ., concur. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
