UNIFUND CCR PARTNERS
v.
GEORGE CLEARY
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.
Unifund CCR Partners appeals a trial court's award of attorney's fees and costs to George Cleary, totaling $21,953.11. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the award, finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court's decision to award fees based on Cleary's settlement proposal or in the amount determined.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney's fees based on Cleary's settlement proposal, nor did it abuse its discretion in determining the amount of attorney's fees and expert witness fees to award to Cleary.
[1] Appellate courts review a trial court's determination regarding entitlement to attorney's fees for an abuse of discretion.
[2] Appellate courts review a trial court's determination regarding the amount of attorney's fees for an abuse of discretion.
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“When reviewing a trial court's determination regarding entitlement to attorney's fees, the standard of review is abuse of discretion.”
Establishes the applicable standard of review for both entitlement and amount of attorney's fees
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court awarded attorney's fees and costs to Cleary against Unifund in the amount of $21,953.11. The award was based on Cleary's proposal for …
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 Proposal For Settlement cases and more on FLexlaw
Before T. SMITH, DAVIS, BLACKWELL, J.J.
PER CURIAM.
FINAL ORDER AND OPINION AFFIRMING TRIAL COURT
Appellant Unifund CCR Partners (“Unifund”) appeals the trial court’s Final Judgment, entered on June 25, 2007, awarding Appellee George Cleary (“Cleary”) attorney’s fees and costs. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(c)(1)(A). When reviewing a trial court’s determination regarding entitlement to attorney’s fees, the standard of review is abuse of discretion. Musselwhite v. Charboneau, 840 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). A trial court’s determination regarding the amount of attorney’s fees is also subject to an abuse of discretion standard of review. Baker v. Falcon Power, Inc., 788 So. 2d 1104 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).
The issue on appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion when it granted Cleary’s motion for entitlement to attorney’s fees and ordered Unifund to pay Cleary $21,953.11 in attorney’s fees, interest, and court costs. We find that the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees based on Cleary’s proposal for settlement was not an abuse of discretion. See MX Inv., Inc. v. Crawford, 700 So. 2d 640, 642 (Fla. 1997); Nants v. Griffin, 783 So. 2d 363, 365 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Brooks v. South Seminole Comty. Hosp., 710 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). We further find that based upon the record before us, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining the amount of attorney’s fees and expert witness fees to award to Cleary. See Wilson v. Griffiths, 811 So. 2d 709, 713 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the trial court’s “Final Judgment Awarding Defendant George Cleary Attorney’s Fees and Costs Against Unifund CCR Partners” entered on June 25, 2007, is AFFIRMED; Appellee’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees is GRANTED, the assessment of which is REMANDED to the trial court,; Appellant’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees is DENIED; and this case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, at Orlando, Orange County, Florida on this the __26___ day of ______OCTOBER________________, 2009.
_________/S/______________________
THOMAS B. SMITH
Circuit Judge
__________/S/_____________________
_________/S/______________________ JENIFER M. DAVIS
ALICE L. BLACKWELL Circuit Judge
Circuit Judge CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Order has been furnished via U.S. mail to: Justin D. Jacobson, Esquire, Post Office Box 19359, Plantation, Florida 33318-0359, Steven M. Fahlgren, Esquire, 552382 US Highway 1 North, Hilliard, Florida 32046, and Diane H. Tutt, Esquire, Post Office box 292436, Davie, Florida 33329-2436, on the __26____ day of_______OCTOBER__________, 2009.
______/S/___________________
Judicial Assistant
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Nants v. Griffin, 783 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- H.S. Musselwhite, Jr. v. Brian L. Charboneau & Kathleen E. Charboneau, 840 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
- Baker v. Falcon Power, Inc., 788 So. 2d 1104 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- MX Invs., Inc. v. Crawford, 700 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 1997)
- Wilson v. Griffiths, 811 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- Brooks v. S. Seminole Cmty. Hosp., 710 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)