<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"></head><body ><div>A county judge hearing residential landlord tenant cases under Chapter 83 has a habit of holding short 1-4 hr trials (eviction only or eviction and damages) concluded by issuing only a single Order Staying Final Judgment. Usually the Stay requires that a party must either move out (or move out and pay funds to the other party) before a time certain a few days later, but allowing the intended transferee to motion the Court for Final Judgment if the vacating party/payor does not comply in time. Note that this result is not a motion to determine rent outcome, but rather the result of an eviction trial. The Stay sometimes requires both parties to bear their own attorney fees. </div><div><br></div><div>The judge considers his/her self to have such discretion to issue the Stay, and considers the Stay to be a nonfinal order because of the uncertainty related to having to issue a subsequent final judgment. The majority of the time parties comply with Stay terms by moving/paying.</div><div><br></div><div>When an attorney is involved obviously fees become an issue, since the statute awards fees to prevailing party but the judge is not awarding them. </div><div><br></div><div>What arguments might best be used in support of judges use of a Stay Order (a method to avoid both atty fees and recorded eviction judgments)? </div><div><br></div><div>Conversely, what might be the best way to get fees? in an appeal to circuit (final or non-final order)?</div><div><br></div><div>Your thoughts are greatly appreciated. </div><div><br></div><div>Patrick Hogan</div><div>Pat@HoganLegalServices.com</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></body></html>