EDWARD J. HANLON, JR., APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
A.P. CLARK MOTORS, INC., ET AL., APPELLEES/CROSS-APPELLANTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the trial court's determination of a reasonable attorney fee was supported by the record and that the award of costs was affirmed due to the lack of a record establishing error.
[1] A trial court's determination of a reasonable attorney's fee, supported by the record, will be affirmed on appeal.
[2] A plaintiff who obtains a judgment less favorable than the defendant's offer of judgment must pay the costs incurred after the offer was made.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn attorney sued for his fee and was awarded $2,750. The client sought costs under a rule related to an unaccepted offer of judgment, but the trial co…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Offer Of Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
UPCHURCH, Judge.
This appeal arose out of an action by attorney Edward Hanlon, Jr., to recover his fee for representing A.P. Clark Motors in a legal matter. After deducting credits and a setoff from the reasonable fee for this service, the trial court found that Hanlon was entitled to $2,750. The court also awarded Clark some but not all of its costs.
On appeal, Hanlon argues that he is entitled, as a matter of law, to a fee of $83,750 as claimed. On cross-appeal, Clark argues that Hanlon is not entitled to any fee. Both of these arguments are without merit. The court’s determination of a reasonable fee for the services rendered is supported by the record and accordingly is affirmed.
On cross-appeal, Clark also argues that it was entitled to recover all of its costs pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442. This rule provides that if the judgment finally obtained by the plaintiff is not more favorable than the offer of judgment made by the defendant, then the plaintiff must pay the costs incurred after the making of the offer. This rule is couched in mandatory terms and is designed to induce a party to settle litigation and to avoid the necessity of a trial. Santiesteban v. McGrath, 320 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).
Here Clark served an offer of judgment for $5,000 on Hanlon in June 1984. The offer was not accepted and the trial was held in February 1985. The judgment finally obtained by Hanlon was for $2,750 which was less than the offer of judgment. After the judgment was filed, Clark moved to tax costs allegedly incurred after June 1984 in the amount of $1,204.80. The court granted Clark’s motion but only awarded costs in the amount of $237.25.
The order awarding costs indicates that a hearing was held on this matter but no transcript appears in the record. Perhaps the court found that the remaining costs were unreasonable or were incurred prior to the offer of judgment. In the absence of a record establishing error, the order awarding costs must be affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
SHARP and COWART, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tiedeman v. City OF Miami, 529 So. 2d 1266 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…; and (c) there is no basis to upset the amount of the award as urged by the defendant Show Management, Inc. on the cross appeal. See Bill Rivers Trailers, Inc. v. Miller, 489 So. 2d 1139, 1143 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Hanlon v. A.P. Clark Motors, Inc., 487 So. 2d 427, 427 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Florida Homes Constr. Co. v. Execu*Sys. of Cent. Fla., Inc., 393 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). The final order awarding attorney’s fees to the City of Miami under Section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1987), is reversed upo…
Authorities Cited
- Mariano Santiesteban v. McGRATH, 320 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)