Gouldy v. Chiasson
A pro se litigant appealed an order fixing the amount of appellate attorney's fees and costs ($65,662.23) awarded to an attorney-defendant under the civil theft fee-shifting statute, section 772.11(1), after the Fourth District had affirmed summary judgment and granted entitlement to appellate fees in a prior appeal. The Fourth District affirmed on all fifteen issues, rejecting arguments on rule 1.525 timeliness, lack of an express section 772.11 finding, due process, verbatim adoption of a proposed order, apportionment, and taxable expert costs. The court also issued a separate order to show cause why the appellant should not be barred from further pro se filings because her brief cited a nonexistent case and fabricated quotations, apparently AI-generated.
Key facts
- Pro se appellant Gouldy appealed an order fixing appellate attorney's fees and costs of $65,662.23 awarded to attorney-defendant Chiasson under the civil theft fee-shifting statute, section 772.11(1).
- The Fourth District had previously affirmed summary judgment in favor of Chiasson and granted entitlement to appellate fees; the trial court then held a hearing to determine the amount of those fees.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This opinion is a useful one-stop citation for fee-litigation defenses: it confirms rule 1.525 has no application to setting the amount of appellate fees after entitlement is granted, and—most notably—holds that an… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.