ABD MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
ROBERT L. TURCHIN, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE, AND DELCOR CONSTRUCTION, INC., APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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.
ABD Management Corporation challenges a trial court order requiring it to pay a subcontractor's attorney's fees and costs, and contests a limitation on cross-examination of an expert witness. The court reverses the attorney's fees award against the owner, finding that the general contractor, not the owner, bears responsibility for such costs absent a clear agreement shifting liability, but affirms the trial court's time limitation on expert witness examination.
The court reverses the award of attorney's fees and costs against the owner, holding that absent a clear agreement shifting such costs, they are the responsibility of the general contractor because an owner's payment to the general contractor is not ordinarily a condition precedent to a subcontractor's right to payment. The court affirms the time limitation on expert witness examination as within the trial court's discretion. The court affirms denial of paralegal expenses as part of attorney's fees but allows on remand an award for attorney time spent directly supervising paralegals.
[1] An owner's failure to pay a general contractor is not ordinarily a condition precedent to the right of subcontractors to receive payment from the general contractor for w…
[2] In the absence of an agreement clearly shifting costs to the owner, attorney's fees and costs incurred by a subcontractor in a suit against a general contractor are the r…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“owner's payment to general contractor is not ordinarily a condition precedent to right of subcontractors to receive payment from general contractor for work completed”
Establishes that the owner cannot be held liable for subcontractor's collection costs from the general contractor
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceABD Management Corporation owned a 250-unit highrise apartment building constructed by Robert L. Turchin, Inc., the general contractor. Delcor Constru…
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 Cross-Examination Limitations cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The parties to these appeals are the owner of a 250-unit highrise apartment building, ABD Management Corp.; the general contractor who built it, Robert L. Turchin, Inc.; and a subcontractor, Delcor Construction, Inc. Appellant ABD challenges (1) the trial court’s order requiring it to pay Delcor’s attorney’s fees and costs, and (2) the trial court’s limitation of its cross-examination of an expert witness. Cross-appellant Delcor alleges as error the court’s failure to award paralegal expenses as part of Delcor’s award of attorney’s fees.
Attorney’s fees and costs incurred by the subcontractor in a suit to collect from the general contractor for work completed were assessed against the owner on the theory that the owner’s failure to pay the general contractor caused the latter to default in payment to the subcontractor.
We reverse on the authority of Peacock Construction Co. v. Modern Air Conditioning, Inc., 353 So. 2d 840 (Fla.1977) (owner’s payment to general contractor is not ordinarily a condition precedent to right of subcontractors to receive payment from general contractor for work completed) and Norin Mortgage Corp. v. Wasco, Inc., 343 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977) (construction contractor could not recover attorney’s fees and costs which it incurred in connection with defending suits which had been brought against contractor by subcontractors for money owed by the contractor which had not been paid because of the owner’s failure to pay the contractor). In the absence of an agreement which clearly shifts such costs to the owner, they are the responsibility of the general contractor.
We find no abuse of discretion in the court’s imposition of a fifteen-minute limitation, divided between the two sides, for examining an expert witness on a damage issue, where the parties were permitted to introduce into evidence all or any part of the witness’ pretrial deposition, and the jury was given a view of the premises which were the subject of the alleged defective construction workmanship. See H.I. Holding Co. v. Dade County, 129 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 3d DCA) (trial judge is vested with considerable discretion in regulating and controlling manner of examination of witnesses which will not be disturbed unless the discretion is abused or substantial harm is caused to the complaining party), cert. denied, 133 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 1961).
By cross-appeal the subcontractor contends that the trial court erred in failing to include paralegal expenses as part of its award of attorney’s fees. We affirm the court’s denial of the claim for the services of a paralegal on authority of Bill Rivers Trailers, Inc. v. Miller, 489 So. 2d 1139 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (an “attorney’s fee” clearly refers to a fee for work done by an attorney); however, on remand the court may award a fee for the time spent by an attorney in directly supervising the paralegal. See Bill Rivers Trailers.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part; and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Acquisition Corp. OF Am. & Kenneth v. Hemmerle, Sr., 543 So. 2d 878 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…American Cast Iron by Coffman. Peacock Construction Co. v. Modern Air Conditioning, Inc., 353 [*883] So. 2d 840 (Fla.1977). That being the case, expenses connected with such litigation are not recoverable. ABD Management v. Robert L. Turchin, Inc., 490 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Norin Mortgage Corp. v. Wasco, Inc., 343 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). In addition, by far the vast majority of the fees claimed by Coffman resulted from the prosecution of its claim against Hemmerle. Coffman claims that these…
-
In re Est. OF Emily B. Paulk v. Lindamood, 529 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…e Bill Rivers rule, the staff analysis to the House of Representatives Committee on Judiciary states: "This legislation would reverse the decisions of the first [Bill Rivers] and third districts [ABD Management Corporation v. Robert L Turchin, Inc., 490 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) ] and would specifically provide that an award of attorney’s fees would include an award for the services of a legal assistant employed by the attorney.” See House of Representatives Committee on Judiciary Staff Analysis to HB 053…
-
Marcel Lemoine v. James F. Cooney, M.D., 514 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…ttorney’s fees.” There is no Florida case which has held that attorney’s fees include paralegal services, on the contrary it has been found to be error to award fees attributable to a paralegal. ABD Management Corporation v. Robert L. Turchin, Inc., 490 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) and Bill Rivers Trailers, Inc. v. Miller, 489 So. 2d 1139 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).2 Accordingly, as to this particular holding by the trial court, we remand for the purpose of determining, if indeed the attorneys cannot agree among th…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Peacock Constr. Co., Inc. v. Modern AIR Conditioning, Inc., 353 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 1977)
- H. I. Holding Co. v. Dade Cnty., 129 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- Bill Rivers Trailers, Inc. v. Miller, 489 So. 2d 1139 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Rezeau v. City of Miami, 133 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 1961)
- Howard v. Howard, 133 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 1961)
- Norin Mortg. Corp. v. Wasco, Inc., 343 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)