EVELYN BLITS AND HAROLD BLITS, APPELLANTS,
v.
RENAISSANCE CRUISES, INC., A FOREIGN CORPORATION, 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.
Plaintiffs appealed a defense verdict and challenged the trial court's award of attorney's fees, arguing the offer of judgment lacked good faith and the court failed to make sufficient findings of fact in awarding fees. The appellate court affirmed, finding the good faith argument meritless and the procedural deficiency in not explicitly stating hours and hourly rate in the written order to be harmless error.
The trial court's failure to include explicit findings of hours and hourly rate in the written order constitutes harmless error where there is no contingency factor or lodestar adjustment. The offer of judgment was made in good faith. The attorney's fees award is affirmed.
[1] An offer of judgment is presumed to be made in good faith.
[2] A trial court's failure to make explicit findings of fact regarding the number of hours reasonably expended and the reasonable hourly rate in an attorney's fee award is h…
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“In determining the hourly rate, the number of hours reasonably expended, and the appropriateness of the reduction or enhancement factors, the trial court must set forth specific findings.”
Establishes the legal standard for attorney's fees awards requiring explicit factual findings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs did not accept an offer of judgment and proceeded to trial, where they suffered a defense verdict. At an evidentiary hearing on attorney's …
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 Appeal Of Attorney'S Fees Award cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, Judge.
Plaintiffs did not accept an offer of judgment, suffered a defense verdict, and now appeal, arguing that the offer of judgment was not in good faith and that the trial court failed to make findings of fact in its award of attorney’s fees. The argument that the offer was not in good faith is without merit. The argument that the trial court failed to make sufficient findings of fact in its order awarding attorney’s fees has some merit; however, we affirm.
After hearing testimony at an evidentiary hearing on attorney’s fees, the court stated on the record that it would award $11,250, and that it arrived at this amount by multiplying 75 hours times $150 an hour. The order itself does not set forth the amount of hours or hourly rate, and plaintiffs argue that it must be reversed under Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145, 1151 (Fla.1985), in which the court stated:
In determining the hourly rate, the number of hours reasonably expended, and the appropriateness of the reduction or enhancement factors, the trial court must set forth specific findings. If the court decides to adjust the lodestar, it must state the grounds on which it justifies the enhancement or reduction. In summary, in computing an attorney fee, the trial judge should (1) determine the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation; (2) determine the reasonable hourly rate for this type of litigation; (3) multiply the result of (1) and (2); and, when appropriate, (4) adjust the fee on the basis of the contingent nature of the litigation or the failure to prevail on a claim or claims. Application of the Disciplinary Rule 2-106 criteria in this manner will provide trial judges with objective guidance in the awarding of reasonable attorney fees and allow parties an opportunity for meaningful appellate review.
We conclude that where, as here, the only findings necessary to arrive at the proper amount are the number of hours reasonably expended and the reasonable hourly rate, the failure to have more explicit findings is harmless error under Rowe. However, we remind trial judges and counsel who often prepare the orders awarding attorney’s fees after the court has orally announced its findings, of Rowe’s requirements. We see too many appeals in which the only meritorious issue is the court’s failure to comply with Rowe. In the present case, however, since there is no contingency factor or adjustment of the lodestar, reversal would serve no useful purpose.
AFFIRMED.
HERSEY and STONE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Ines Collia Kelly v. Tworoger, 705 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…rate. See, e.g., Loper v. Allstate Ins. Co., 616 So. 2d 1055, 1061 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). This is not a case where the error can be deemed harmless, because the court made no oral findings to support the award. See Blits v. Renaissance Cruises, Inc., 647 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). Finally, we affirm the sanctions imposed against the Kellys’ attorney as being within the trial court’s discretion. See Patsy v. Patsy, 666 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED. PO…
-
Orit Simhoni v. Chambliss, 843 So. 2d 1036 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…DCA 1998); Guardianship of Halpert v. Rosenbloom, 698 So. 2d 938, 939 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). The trial court did not state on the record the number of hours and the rate it used to arrive at the final award. But cf. Blits v. Renaissance Cruises, Inc., 647 So. 2d 971, 972 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (holding that where court stated on record it would award $11,250 and that it derived this number by multiplying seventy-five hours times $150.00 an hour, reversal was not required, despite the lack of findings in the writte…
-
Levine v. Keaster, 862 So. 2d 876 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…trial court’s order violates this rule because it does not set forth any factual findings regarding the time expended, the hourly rate, or any other factors considered. Moreover, this case is distinguishable from Blits v. Renaissance Cruises, Inc., 647 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), where this court found that the failure to have more explicit findings was harmless error. There are no statements in the record here, either in the order, or in the hearing transcript, explaining the basis for the attorneys’ fe…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fla. Patient's Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985)