REGINA TISIKER MARGULIES, APPELLANT,
v.
MARTIN Z. MARGULIES, APPELLEE
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.
In a matrimonial fee dispute, the trial court awarded attorney's fees to the unsuccessful wife's counsel under Florida Statutes § 61.16, applying the lodestar method but reducing the award due to both unreasonable client demands and the unsuccessful outcome of the litigation. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the results obtained remain a proper factor in calculating attorney's fees even in domestic relations cases.
The court held that results obtained remain a proper factor in awarding attorney's fees even under § 61.16 in domestic relations matters. Although the trial court's reduction must always be subject to review for abuse of discretion, the unsuccessful outcome may legitimately factor into the final fee calculation.
[1] The "lodestar" approach to attorney's fees allows for the results obtained to be considered as a factor in awarding fees.
[2] In domestic relations matters, the results obtained can still be a factor in the award of attorney's fees, even when awarded pursuant to section 61.16, Florida Statutes.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“The adoption of the "lodestar" criteria in Rowe, supra, reconfirmed that the results obtained is still to be considered as a factor in awarding fees.”
Establishes that even under the lodestar approach adopted by Florida's Supreme Court, the outcome of litigation remains a proper consideration in fee awards.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFollowing an earlier decision in Margulies v. Margulies, the trial court held a hearing to determine reasonable attorney's fees for the wife's unsucce…
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 Florida Patient'S Compensation Fund V. Rowe Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Following an earlier opinion in this matter reported in Margulies v. Margulies, 491 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), the matter came on for hearing to determine the amount of fees that should be awarded, pursuant to section 61.16, Florida Statutes (1985), to counsel for the unsuccessful party (who in this instance happens to be the wife) in the earlier proceeding. The trial court, after receiving extensive evidence, determined the total amount of time expended by four counsel on behalf of the wife.1 It then determined that a large portion of the time involved was unnecessarily spent because of the demands and actions of the client. The remaining hours it determined were reasonably spent on her behalf.
The court applied the “lodestar” approach as provided in Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla.1985) and then reduced this amount because the efforts of the respec tive attorneys had been unsuccessful and ultimately awarded a fee to all four of $72,473.44. This appeal ensued.
The appellant makes no objection to the reduction in the total amount of time spent because of her unreasonable demands and actions. She does contend that once the trial court determined the reasonable amount of time expended in representing her cause, it was required by law to award the full amount of such fee found to be reasonable with no diminution because of the unsuccessful result.2 We disagree.
Before the “lodestar” approach was adopted by the Supreme Court of Florida, results were a factor in matrimonial fees. Provus v. Provus, 44 So. 2d 656 (Fla.1950); Adams v. Adams, 376 So. 2d 1204 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Pfohl v. Pfohl, 345 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Donner v. Donner, 281 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). The adoption of the “lodestar” criteria in Rowe, supra, reconfirmed that the results obtained is still to be considered as a factor in awarding fees. It is also a factor to be considered under the Florida Bar Code of Professional Responsibility, D.R. 2-106(B)(4).
Counsel for the appellant contends that as to domestic relation matters and fees awarded pursuant to section 61.16, Florida Statutes (1985), success should not be a factor, as the purpose of the statute is to entitle impecunious clients to have the best available counsel and to hold otherwise might “chill” the opportunity to obtain same. There is certainly some merit to appellant’s argument. However, we think that the results obtained is still a factor in the award of attorney’s fees even under section 61.16, Florida Statutes (1985). We recognize that any determination in the reasonable amount which should be awarded for service because of unsuccessful re-suits would always be subject to review as an abuse of discretion, but as indicated in footnote two, no such attack is made in this proceeding. Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the order on fees be and the same is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.3
. Five counsel sought fees. The court found that the fifth merely duplicated some of the efforts of the other four,
. Counsel in all candor concedes that the argument is not based on any abuse of discretion in reducing the fee by some degree because of the unsuccessful result. That is a different question than that proposed in appellant’s brief.
. By an additional point, the appellant also urges error in the failure of the trial court to require one of the opposing counsel to produce his time records. We find no merit in this point because of the ultimate ruling in this matter, and also we would sustain the trial court’s ruling on the merits as being within its discretion. See and compare Stowe v. Walker Builders Supply, Inc., 431 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Johnson v. University College of the University of Alabama in Birmingham, 706 F. 2d 1205 (11th Cir.1983).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1997)…e. Rosen VI; Peacon v. Peacon, 578 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 3d DCA)(trial court must reconsider the amount of a reasonable fee in light of the substantial alteration of the results obtained), review denied, 589 So. 2d 292 (Fla.1991); Margulies v. Margulies, 506 So. 2d 1093 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)(adoption of the lodestar formula reconfirmed that the results obtained is still a factor to be considered in awarding fees); Adler v. Adler, 418 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)(amount of fees not excessive in light of results achie…
-
Fashion Tile & Marble, Inc. v. Alpha ONE Constr. & Assocs., Inc., 532 So. 2d 1306 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…ssful claims as discussed above, to consider an “exceptional result” as well as an unsuccessful result. See, e.g., Hensley; The Glades, Inc. v. The Glades Country Club Apartments Ass’n, Inc., 534 So. 2d 723 (Fla.2d DCA 1988); Margulies v. Margulies, 506 So. 2d 1093 (Fla.3d DCA 1987). In addition, the trial court may consider the result obtained by the verdict in terms of the potential damages available. See Lindy Bros. Builders, Inc. v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp., 540 F. 2d 102 (3d Cir.1976).…
-
Peacon v. Peacon, 578 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…n Former Wife’s Motion For Attorney’s Fees and Suit Monies in order for the trial court to reconsider the amount of a reasonable fee in light of the substantial alteration of the results obtained by the former wife’s counsel. Margulies v. Margulies, 506 So. 2d 1093 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Keister v. Keister, 458 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). Reversed and remanded. . We reject the former wife's argument that this appeal should be dismissed as untimely. The former husband filed Exceptions to the Report of the Gen…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fla. Patient's Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985)
- Johnson v. Univ. Coll. OF the Univ. OF Ala. IN Birmingham, 706 F.2d 1205 (11th Cir. 1983)
- Pfohl v. Pfohl, 345 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Provus v. Provus, 44 So.2d 656 (Fla. 1950)
- Harland Morrison Adams v. Adams, 376 So. 2d 1204 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Donner v. Donner, 281 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Stowe v. Walker Builders Supply, Inc., 431 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Margulies v. Margulies, 491 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)