MAURICE BARAKAT, INDIVIDUALLY AND DERIVATIVELY ON BEHALF OF CHRISTEL PLAZA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
BYRON SHARP, HARRY BERGER, BRUCE R. BURRELL AND ROLAND WOOD, AS OFFICERS, DIRECTORS AND SHAREHOLDERS OF CHRISTEL PLAZA CORPORATION, AND RONALD G. KLEIN, INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLEES
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 court held that the defendants did not waive their right to have the circuit court decide attorney's fees, but the trial court's order calculating the award lacked necessary findings for a contingency risk multiplier.
Plaintiff appealed an order awarding attorney's fees to defendants. The trial court had awarded fees, but the calculation, particularly regarding a co…
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 Contingency Risk Multiplier cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The plaintiff below, Maurice S. Barakat, appeals from an order awarding attorney’s fees in favor of the defendants. We affirm, in part, and reverse and remand, in part.
We find that the defendants did not waive their right to have the circuit court decide the issue of attorney’s fees and therefore, did not confer subject matter jurisdiction upon the arbitrator to award attorney’s fees. Turnberry Assocs. v. Service Station Aid, Inc., 651 So. 2d 1173 (Fla.1995). Therefore, we conclude that the trial court had the proper authority to award attorney’s fees.
However, we reverse the portion of the order that calculates the actual award of attorney’s fees. The judgment is completely devoid of the necessary findings that a trial court is required to make to support the application of a contingency risk multiplier. See Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla.1985), modified, Standard Guar. Ins. Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So. 2d 828 (Fla.1990); Department of Agric. and Consumer Servs. v. Schick, 553 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Therefore, we remand for the trial court to reconsider the applicability of the contingency risk multiplier. Moreover, upon remand, we instruct the trial court that when determining the number of hours reasonably spent by the defendants’ attorney, the trial court should not include any time spent in defending the quantum meruit count since that count does not arise out of the contract that allows for the award of attorney’s fees. Vining v. Carmona, 596 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992).
Affirmed, in part; reversed and remanded, in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Griffin v. Griffin, 752 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…9, numerous fact issues remain that preclude summary judgment. The first, of course, is whether the misrepresentations in the application were fraudulent or material to the risk or the hazard assumed. See § 627.409(1)(a); Anderson v. Armor Ins. Co., 674 So. 2d 174, 175 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (noting that “[t]he insured’s representations normally constitute a disputed issue of fact for the trier of fact’s resolution regardless of how obviously false or material the representations may be.”). A second issue is whet…
-
Graham v. Lloyd's Underwriters AT London, 964 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…question for the finder of fact. “[T]he insured’s representations normally constitute a disputed issue of fact for the trier of fact’s resolution regardless of how obviously false or material the representations may be.” Anderson v. Armor Ins. Co., 674 So. 2d 174, 175 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (citing Beneby v. Midland Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 402 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)). When the evidence is not conclusive, the accuracy of the answers given by the insured and the insured’s misrepresentations are matters of fac…
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Patient's Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985)
- Standard Guar. Ins. Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 1990)
- Turnberry Assocs. v. Serv. Station AID, Inc., 651 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 1995)
- Dep't of Agric. & Consumer Servs. v. Schick, 553 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Vining v. Carmona, 596 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)