ARDAMAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
v.
41-10 DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
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.
Ardaman & Associates, Inc. appealed a trial court's reduction of attorney's fees in a breach of contract case with a prevailing party fees provision. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal found the trial court abused its discretion by reducing fees from $8,918.75 to $3,060.00 and remanded for recalculation of fees.
The trial court abused its discretion in reducing the attorney's fees. The reduction was improper because it was based on principles of proportionality and the appellant's declination of a settlement offer, which are not proper bases for reducing fees. The trial court also failed to evaluate all relevant criteria and failed to provide findings or reasons for the reduction.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion when it reduces an award of attorney's fees supported by unobjected to and unrebutted evidence.
[2] A trial court errs in basing a reduction of attorney's fees on principles of proportionality or a party's declination of a settlement offer.
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“This Court finds that the trial court abused its discretion in reducing the amount of Appellant's attorney's fees from $8,918.75 to $3,060.00.”
States the core holding that the fee reduction was an abuse of discretion
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis was a hotly contested and extensively litigated breach of contract action. The trial court awarded attorney's fees to the appellant but reduced t…
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 Settlement Offers cases and more on FLexlaw
Before POWELL, BLACKWELL, MACKINNON, J.J.
PER CURIAM.
FINAL ORDER PARTIALLY REVERSING TRIAL COURT’S AMENDED FINAL JUDGMENT
Appellant Ardaman & Associates, Inc. timely appeal the trial court’s Amended Final Judgment, dated January 19, 2009, awarding fees and costs in favor of Appellant. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(c)(1)(A). We dispense with oral argument pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.320. Appellee 41-10 Development Corporation did not favor this Court with an answer brief. The record on appeal shows that this was a hotly contested, extensively litigated, and unreasonably defended action for breach of contract with a prevailing party attorney’s fees provision. See Baker v. Varela, 416 So. 2d 1190, 1192 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)(recognizing that a case that is unreasonably defended could well justify extraordinary efforts). This Court finds that the trial court abused its discretion in reducing the amount of Appellant’s attorney’s fees from $8,918.75 to $3,060.00. It appears from the record that attorney’s fees in the amount of $8,918.75 are supported by unobjected to and unrebutted evidence. See, e.g., Ernest v. Southeastern Fidelity Ins. Co., 422 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). We also find that the trial court erred by basing the reduction in attorney’s fees on principles of proportionality and Appellant’s declination of Appellee’s pretrial non-rule settlement offer. See Baker, 416 So. 2d at 1192, n.1, 1192, n.3. We further note that the trial court failed to evaluate all of the relevant criteria and failed to set forth any findings or reasons for the reduction in the amended final judgment. See Fla. Patient’s Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985). Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Amended Final Judgment, dated January 19, 2009, is PARTIALLY REVERSED and this case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion as to the amount of attorney’s fees only. It is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Appellant’s Motion for Appellate Attorney’s Fees and Costs is GRANTED, the assessment of which is REMANDED to the trial court. DONE AND ORDERED at Orlando, Florida this __3___day _______February_______,
2010.
________/s/____________________
ROM W. POWELL Senior Judge
________/s/_____________________ ________/s/____________________ ALICE L. BLACKWELL
CYNTHIA Z. MACKINNON Circuit Judge
Circuit Judge CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing order was furnished via U.S. mail on this 3 day of February
, 2010, to the following: Doryk B. Graf, Jr., Esquire, Post Office Box 2828, Orlando, Florida 32802 and Dan Dufault, 41-10 Development Corporation, Post Office Box 1909, Marco Island, Florida 34146.
/s/
Judicial Assistant
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Patient's Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985)
- Earnest v. Se. Fid. Ins. Co., 422 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- William A. Baker, M.D. v. Varela, 416 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)