BALDWIN PIANO AND ORGAN COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
ANTHONY AND PATRICIA DOTE, 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.
Baldwin Piano obtained a foreclosure judgment, but the defendants filed a quiet title action and obtained a temporary injunction halting the sale. After the courts determined Baldwin's lien had priority, the injunction was vacated. Baldwin sought attorney's fees for the wrongfully issued injunction, but the trial court limited recovery to three hours of work, which Baldwin appealed as inadequate.
The trial court's attorney's fees award is affirmed. The court was not bound by the testimony of Baldwin's expert regarding reasonable attorney's fees, even absent an opposing expert, and the finding of three hours of time spent on the wrongfully issued injunction was supported by the evidence.
[1] A trial court may award attorney's fees for the wrongful issuance of a temporary injunction.
[2] A trial court is not bound by the testimony of an expert witness regarding the amount of a reasonable attorney's fee, even in the absence of opposing expert testimony.
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“the trial court was not bound by the testimony of the expert as to the amount of a reasonable attorney's fee, even though there was no opposing expert”
Establishes that expert testimony on attorney's fees is not conclusive and trial courts retain discretion in determining reasonable fees
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBaldwin Piano obtained a final judgment in a foreclosure action against Anthony and Patricia Dote. The Dotes filed a quiet title action asserting thei…
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 Intertwined Claims cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, J.
After appellant obtained a final judgment in a foreclosure action, the appellees filed an action to quiet title, asserting their interest was higher in priority than appellant’s, and persuaded the court in the foreclosure action to enjoin the sale. The parties extensively litigated the priority and appellant prevailed, resulting in the injunction being vacated. Appellants then sought damages in the form of attorney’s fees as a result of the wrongful issuance of the temporary injunction.
The trial court found, after an evidentiary hearing, that counsel for appellant only expended three hours of time in litigating the wrongfully issued temporary injunction, and appellant appeals, arguing that the priority claims in the quiet title action were inseparably intertwined and that the attorney’s fee award is inadequate. One of the arguments appellant advances is that appellant’s expert testified that appellant was entitled to a substantially higher fee and that the appellees did not present an expert to contradict the opinion of appellant’s expert. We reject appellant’s argument for two reasons.
First, the trial court could have concluded, based on appellees’ cross-examination of appellant’s expert, that the expert’s testimony included time spent litigating the priority.
Second, the trial court was not bound by the testimony of the expert as to the amount of a reasonable attorney’s fee, even though there was no opposing expert. Baruch v. Giblin, 122 Fla. 59, 164 So. 831 (1935) and Ruwitch v.
First Nat’l Bank of Miami, 327 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). We have considered the other issues raised by appellant and find them to be without merit.
Affirmed.
TAYLOR, J., and BLANC, PETER D., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Island Hoppers, Ltd. v. Norma Beard Keith for the Estate of Marsha K. Beard, 820 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…the expertise of trial judges in this area, we have held that a “trial court was not bound by the testimony of [an] expert as to the amount of a reasonable attorney’s fee, even though there was no opposing expert.” Baldwin Piano & Organ Co. v. Dote, 740 So. 2d 1230, 1231 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). How important can it be that an award of attorney’s fees has been “substantiated” by expert testimony in addition to that of the lawyer claiming the fee, if the judge is free to disregard that testimony? If a trial court…
-
Dep't OF Agric. & Consumer Servs. v. Bogorff, 35 So. 3d 84 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…ot bound by testimony of expert witnesses even where unrebutted); Southpointe Homeowners Ass’n Inc. v. Segarra, 763 So. 2d 1186, 1187 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (trial judges are not bound by unrebutted expert testimony); Baldwin Piano & Organ Co. v. Dote, 740 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); County of Sarasota v. Burdette, 479 So. 2d 763, 764 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (jury could return verdict for amount less than maximum sought by landowner because jury determines weight and credibility to be given expert’s testimony).…
-
Rosenbloom v. Rosenbloom, 892 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…y the testimony of expert witnesses, even where unrebutted. Behm v. Div. of Admin., State of Florida, 336 So. 2d 579 (Fla.1976); Southpointe Homeowners Ass’n v. Segarra, 763 So. 2d 1186, 1187 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Baldwin Piano and Organ Co. v. Dote, 740 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); County of Sarasota v. Burdette, 479 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); E.D. Rivers v. Phillips, 367 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). This court has stated, A trial judge can conclude, based on his or her familiarity with dissolution…
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
- Sailing W. Baruch v. Giblen, 122 Fla. 59 (Fla. 1935)
- Ruwitch v. First Nat'l Bank OF Miami, 327 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)