SAND DOLLAR INVESTMENTS, INC., APPELLANT/CROSS APPELLEE,
v.
ANJA, INC., AND MISTEL, INC., 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.
Court reversed and remanded to calculate reasonable attorney's fees under Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Rowe guidelines where mortgage required reasonable fees but specified no percentage, holding that section 687.06 does not apply absent a stated percentage.
When a mortgage requires payment of a reasonable attorney's fee but specifies no percentage, section 687.06 does not apply and fees must be calculated under the reasonable-fee guidelines of Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Rowe.
[1] Section 687.06, Florida Statutes, which provides for automatic reasonableness of attorney's fees not exceeding 10 percent of principal, does not apply when a mortgage req…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSand Dollar Investments held a mortgage against Anja, Inc. and Mistel, Inc. that required payment of a reasonable attorney's fee but did not specify a…
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 Statutory Construction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
On the main appeal, we reverse and remand with direction to calculate a reasonable attorney’s fee in accordance with the guidelines set out in Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla.1985). The mortgage required appellants to pay a reasonable fee. There being no percentage recited in the instrument, section 687.06, Florida Statutes (1985) does not apply.1 See Sepler v. Emanuel, 388 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Dean v. Coyne, 455 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).
We affirm the cross appeal.
GLICKSTEIN and GUNTHER, JJ., concur. LETTS, J., dissents with opinion.
. 687.06 Attorney’s fee in enforcing nonusurious contracts; proviso; insurance premiums; attorney’s fee provided in note. — This chapter shall not be so construed as to prevent provision for the payment of such attorney’s fees as the court may determine in cases brought before the court to be reasonable and just for legal services rendered in enforcing nonusurious contracts, either at law or in equity. This chapter shall not be construed so as to prohibit mortgagees from contracting for or collecting premiums for insurance actually issued on the property mortgaged, with the usual loss payable or mortgage clause attached thereto; provided further, that it shall not be necessary for the court to adjudge an attorney’s fee, provided in any note or other instrument of writing, to be reasonable and just, when such fee does not exceed 10 percent of the principal sum named in said note, or other instrument in writing.
LETTS, Judge,
dissenting.
I do not agree that section 687.06, Florida Statutes (1985) does not apply. Quite to the contrary, it does apply and in a manner that supports affirmance in view of the fact the attorney’s fee in this case was approximately five percent of the outstanding balance of the note and mortgage. Further, I also cannot agree that the two cases cited support the majority’s conclusion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jerrell Davis v. Powell (9th Cir. Ct. App. Div. 2009)…ied and not accompanied by an affidavit of Appellee’s attorney or other attorney. roof. See Sepler v. Emanuel, 388 So. 2d 28, 29 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Dean v. Coyne, 455 So. 2d 576, 576 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Sand Dollar Investments, Inc. v. Anja, Inc., 492 So. 2d 1, 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). Second, even assuming that the statute did apply, Appellee’s contention would still be incorrect because the fee awarded, $4,200, is more than 10% of the principal sum, $15, 680, stated in the contract. The final judgment do…
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Patient's Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985)
- Sepler v. Annalee Emanuel, 388 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Dean v. Coyne, 455 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)