ROBERT HARTLEB, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ET AL., 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 Fourth District affirmed a trial court's award of attorney's fees and costs, rejecting the appellant's arguments that the award should have been apportioned among different litigation stages and that interest should have been awarded on the fees. The court found the trial court's discretionary fee award was within established parameters and not subject to reversal absent clear abuse.
The court held that apportionment of attorney's fees among different litigation stages is not required in eminent domain proceedings. The court also held that there is no statutory authority for awarding interest on attorney's fees in eminent domain cases prior to the trial court's determination of the fee amount.
[1] An award of attorney's fees and costs is within the trial court's discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear abuse of that discretion.
[2] Specific findings by the trial court regarding the number of hours reasonably expended and the reasonable hourly rate are sufficient to support an attorney's fee award wh…
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“The award is within the trial court's discretion and should not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear abuse of that discretion.”
Establishes the standard of review for attorney's fee awards on appeal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involved an eminent domain proceeding where the trial court awarded attorney's fees and costs to the prevailing party. The trial court made 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 Interest On Attorney'S Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
STONE, Chief Judge.
We affirm an order taxing attorney’s fees and costs. The award is within the trial court’s discretion and should not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear abuse of that discretion. B & H Constr. & Supply Co. v. District Bd. of Trustees of Tallahassee Community College, 542 So. 2d 382, 388 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).
The trial court made specific findings to support the award regarding the number of hours reasonably expended and the reasonable hourly rate for this litigation and multiplied these numbers in arriving at the fee award. Such findings are sufficient in the absence of an adjustment to the “lodestar,” which the trial court implicitly concluded was not justified. See generally 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).
Appellant claims that the court erred by failing to apportion the attorney’s fee award among each stage of the proceeding, including pre-trial and trial proceedings, the first appeal in this case, and this appeal. We find that such apportionment is not required, and to the extent that Altamonte Hitch and Trailer Service, Inc. v. U-Haul Co. of Eastern Florida, 483 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986) may be interpreted as requiring such apportionment, we certify conflict.
We also find no error in the trial court’s refusal to grant interest on the attorney’s fee award from the date the entitlement to fees was first determined. In Department of Transportation v. Brouwer’s Flowers, Inc., 600 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), the court held that there is “no statutory authority for entitlement to interest on attorney’s fees in eminent domain cases before the trial court’s determination of the amount of attorney’s fees.” Id. at 1261. Cases cited by Appellant are distinguishable in that they do not involve eminent domain proceedings. See Fischbach & Moore, Inc. v. McBro, Div. of McCarthy Bros. Co., 619 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (noting the holding in Brouwer’s but limiting this holding exclusively to eminent domain proceedings).
As to all other issues, we also affirm.
PARMER and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Seminole Cnty. v. Boyle Inv. Co., 719 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…ettlement determining entitlement of the fees until the date of the determination by the court of the amount of the fees. The delay time between those events is not attributable to appellant in this case. See also Hartleb v. State, Dep’t of Transp., 711 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); State of Florida, Dep’t of Transp. v. Interstate Hotels Corp., 709 So. 2d 1387 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). The award of interest is reversed. [*1005] AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED. GRIFFIN, C.J., and ANTOON, J., concur.…
-
Misael Gomez Lizardi and Tanya Torres Gomez v. Federated Nat'l Ins. Co., 322 So. 3d 184 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021)…yers on the same matter' " because the trial court needed to make a specific finding as to which work was duplicative).4 Federated cites to Gonzalez v. Veloso, 731 So. 2d 63, 64 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), and Hartleb v. State, Department of Transportation, 711 So. 2d 228, 229 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), for the argument that fee awards are not defective under Rowe where the lodestar amount is not modified. But neither of those cases indicates that it involved a significant reduction in the number of hours claimed or the 4…
-
Black v. Bedford AT Lake Catherine Homeowners Ass'n, Inc., 801 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…om enforcement has been sought shall pay all costs and reasonable attorney’s fees at all trial and appellate levels to the prevailing party. The standard of review for an award of attorney’s fees is abuse of discretion. Hartleb v. Dep’t of Transp., 711 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). We have held that “[wjhere a contract provides attorney’s fees for the prevailing party, the trial judge is without discretion to decline to enforce the provision.” Hutchinson v. Hutchinson, 687 So. 2d 912, 913 (Fla. 4th DCA 199…
Previewing 3 of 6 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)
- Standard Guar. Ins. Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 1990)
- B & H Constr. & Supply Co., Inc. v. The Dist. Bd. OF Trs. OF Tallahassee Cmty. Coll., 542 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Altamonte Hitch & Trailer Serv., Inc. v. U-Haul Co. OF E. Fla., 483 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Fischbach & Moore, Inc. v. McBRO, 619 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
- State v. Brouwer's Flowers, Inc., 600 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)