MARGARETTA C. BEISSWENGER AND LOREEN J. BEISSWENGER, APPELLANTS/CROSS APPELLEES,
v.
OMICRON CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT CO., INC., APPELLEE/CROSS APPELLANT, AND RAY GONZALEZ, INDIVIDUALLY, 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.
The appellate court reversed and remanded the trial court's award of attorneys' fees because the trial court failed to provide specific reasons for reducing the lodestar amount as required by Florida law.
A trial court must provide specific reasons for any reduction of the lodestar amount in an attorneys' fees award, as required by Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Rowe.
[1] A trial court awarding attorneys' fees must provide specific reasons for any reduction of the lodestar amount calculated under the hours-times-rate method.
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 intelligenceThe trial court awarded attorneys' fees to the counter-plaintiff based on 159.75 hours at rates of $125 and $175 per hour, calculating a lodestar of $…
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 Lodestar Method cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This appeal and cross appeal both contest the trial court’s following award of attorneys’ fees.
3. The Court finds that the amount of 159.75 hours that was testified as having been expended by the attorneys for the Counter-Plaintiff was reasonable, and the rates of $125 for 106.25 of those hours and $175 for 53.5 of those hours was reasonable. The Court further finds that since this is not a contingent fee agreement that no enhancement factor is appropriate. Having arrived at such “lodestar” the Court finds that a reduction in such fee is appropriate as allowed by Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 [So. 2d 1145] (Fla.1985). Therefore, the lodestar figure of $22,993.75 is reduced by $6,500 and the sum of $16,493.75 is awarded as attorneys fees to the Counter-Plaintiff. Additionally, the sum of $1,560.78 is allowed as costs.
Pursuant to Fashion Tile and Marble, Inc. v. Alpha One Construction Associates, Inc., 532 So. 2d 1306 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), Rowe requires specific reasons for a reduction of the lodestar amount; and the trial court has only partially complied with Rowe. Accordingly, we reverse and remand with direction that the trial court enter specific reasons to support the $6,500 reduction, or establish an award that complies with Rowe.
GLICKSTEIN, WALDEN and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
LEE Cnty. v. Tohari, 582 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…). In the exceptional case in which an adjustment of the lodestar fee is authorized based on the result obtained, the trial court is required to make express findings to justify its decision. Fashion Tile; Beisswenger v. Omicron Constr. & Dev. Co., 552 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). For purposes of appellate review, the trial court “should indicate that it has considered the relationship between the amount of the fee awarded and the extent of success.” Rowe, 472 So. 2d at 1151. In this case, the order does…
-
Dep't of Agric. & Consumer Servs. v. Schick, 553 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…So. 2d 1145 (Fla.1985); Lara v. Fortune Insurance Co., 545 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Atlantis Building B Condominium Association v. Skawski, 544 So. 2d 1069 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). See also Beisswenger v. Omicron Construction and Development Co., 552 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). Accordingly, we reverse the final judgments awarding attorney’s fees and remand to the trial court with instructions to conduct such further hearings as may be necessary and to enter final judgments awarding attorney’s fees comp…
-
Ferran Eng'g Grp., Inc. v. Di-Bar Elecs., Inc., 590 So. 2d 1104 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…h the amount claimed for an attorney’s fee, it is normally an abuse of discretion to abandon the lodestar methodology and limit that fee to a percentage of the amount recovered as damages. Beisswenger v. Omicron Construction & Development Co., Inc., 552 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Fashion Tile & Marble, Inc. v. Alpha One Const. & Associates, Inc., 532 So. 2d 1306, 1309 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Marchion Terrazzo, Inc. v. Altman, 372 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). Accordingly, the post-judgment order awarding…
Authorities Cited
- Fashion Tile & Marble, Inc. v. Alpha ONE Constr. & Assocs., Inc., 532 So. 2d 1306 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)