CESAR BREA, M.D., APPELLANT,
v.
MARIA ISABEL PEREZ-BORROTO, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF RENE PEREZ-BORROTO, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Florida Patient'S Compensation Fund V. Rowe Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Finding that the trial court erred in limiting to the amount of the parties’ contract an attorney’s fee award under section 768.-56, Florida Statutes (1988) (repealed ch. 85-175), we reverse the final judgment awarding attorney’s fees. Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla.1985), limits fees in contingent fee cases but does not impose the same limitations in non-contingent fee matters. Maserati Autos., Inc. v. Caplan, 522 So. 2d 993 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Alston v. Sundeck Products, Inc., 498 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986).
We certify that the decision of this court in this cause passes upon a question of great public importance:
IS THE TRIAL COURT LIMITED BY THE NON-CONTINGENT FEE AGREEMENT BETWEEN ATTORNEY AND CLIENT WHEN THE TRIAL COURT APPLIES THE PRINCIPLES SET FORTH IN FLORIDA PATIENT’S COMPENSATION FUND v. ROWE, 472 SO .2D 1145 (FLA.1985), TO DETERMINE AN ATTORNEY’S FEE AWARD PURSUANT TO SECTION 768.56, FLORIDA STATUTES (1983) (REPEALED CH. 85-175)?
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Perez-Borroto v. Cesar Brea, M.D., 544 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 1989)…OVERTON, Judge. We have for review Brea v. Perez-Borroto, 529 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), in which the district court certified the following question as one of great public importance: Is the trial court limited by the non-contingent fee agreement between attorney and client when the trial court applies the principl…
-
Goldstein v. David Richter, M.D., 538 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…er of hours and the hourly rate were supported by expert testimony. The Goldsteins assert that the $125.00 per hour rate awarded by the trial [*476] court was incorrect because Visiola’s counsel only billed $85.00 per hour. In Brea v. Perez-Borroto, 529 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), the court held that although Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla.1985), limits fees in contingent fee cases, the case does not impose the same limitations in non-contingent fee matters. Reversing an…
-
Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Sheehan, 537 So. 2d 1111 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…the appellee and her attorney. Maserati Autos., Inc. v. Caplan, 522 So. 2d 993 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Ronlee, Inc. v. Arvida Corp., 515 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); see Goldstein v. Richter, 538 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Brea v. Perez-Borroto, 529 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Furthermore, contrary to the appellant’s contention that such a requirement is imposed by Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla.1985), no additional findings to justify the fact that the rate exceeded…
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Patient's Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985)
- Alston v. Sundeck Prods., Inc., 498 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- Maserati Automobiles Inc. & Alfieri Maserati v. Caplan, 522 So. 2d 993 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)