NELSON HOLDING, INC. AND JOSEPH J. NELSON, APPELLANTS,
v.
THE DINSMORE COMPANY, 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 mortgage foreclosure action, the court affirmed the summary judgment for foreclosure but reversed the attorney fees award because the trial court failed to comply with the procedural requirements for awarding attorney fees set forth in Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Rowe. The case was remanded for proper determination of reasonable attorney fees with adequate findings of fact.
The court affirmed the summary judgment of foreclosure but reversed the attorney fees award because the trial court failed to comply with Rowe requirements. The supersedeas bond issue was deemed moot because the property had been redeemed. The case was remanded for proper determination of reasonable attorney fees with detailed findings of fact.
[1] A summary final judgment of foreclosure may be affirmed even if the award of attorney fees is reversed.
[2] An award of attorney fees must be reversed if the trial court fails to comply with the requirements of Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. …
Previewing 2 of 5 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“we affirm the judgment (except for the portion awarding attorney fees) without discussion”
Establishes that the court affirmed the foreclosure summary judgment but found error in the attorney fees component
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNelson Holding, Inc. and Joseph J. Nelson were defendants in a mortgage foreclosure action brought by The Dinsmore Company. The trial court granted su…
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 Supersedeas Bond cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellants, defendants below, seek review of a summary final judgment entered in a mortgage foreclosure action. They contend (1) that the trial court erred reversibly when it granted the motion for summary judgment, because genuine issues existed as to material facts; (2) that the award of attorney fees fails to satisfy the requirements of controlling case law; and (3) that the trial court abused its discretion by requiring that an excessive su-persedeas bond be posted to stay the judgment pending the outcome of this appeal. Having reviewed with care the record on appeal, we affirm the judgment (except for the portion awarding attorney fees) without discussion. Further, we conclude that the issue regarding the amount of the su-persedeas bond is moot (and, therefore, decline to address it), because the real property involved in the action has since been redeemed by appellant Nelson Holding, Inc. However, we do agree with appellants that the award of attorney fees must be reversed because the trial court failed to comply with the requirements set forth in Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla.1985), and its progeny.
Accordingly, we affirm the summary final judgment of foreclosure, except for the portion awarding attorney fees. We reverse the award of attorney fees, and remand. On remand, the trial court shall receive evidence sufficient for it to render an informed decision regarding reasonable attorney fees for the services of appellee’s attorneys, both in the trial court and on this appeal. (We have, by separate order, granted appellee’s motion for attorney fees on appeal, and remanded to the trial court for determination of the amount.) It shall then make sufficiently detailed findings of fact to permit a reviewing court to determine whether or not it has complied with Rowe and its progeny.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; and REMANDED, with directions.
SMITH, WIGGINTON and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.