JOSEPH TOLEDO AND STUART LINCOLN MERCURY, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
EDIE WISK, 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.
The court affirmed the final judgment for attorneys' fees, finding no abuse of discretion in the amount awarded or the sufficiency of the evidence.
Appellants sought review of a final judgment awarding attorneys' fees. The trial court considered relevant factors and admitted attorneys' time record…
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 Admissibility Of Settlement Offers cases and more on FLexlaw
STONE, J.
We affirm the final judgment for attorneys’ fees. Appellants have not demonstrated error or an abuse of discretion as to the amount of fees or sufficiency of the evidence in support of the award. There was also no error in the court’s rejection of evidence of a settlement offer made by Appellants that pre-dated the settlement agreement between the parties.
The record reflects that the trial court considered the relevant factors set forth in Standard Guaranty Insurance Company v. Quanstrom, 555 So. 2d 828 (Fla.1990). We recognize that Appellants correctly assert that there was no direct testimony concerning awards in similar cases or as to the attorneys’ former relationship with their client; nevertheless, we deem the absence of such evidence harmless on this record. We additionally affirm as to the cost issue raised for the first time on appeal. See Noel v. Broward Gen. Med. Ctr., 725 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).
We also conclude that it was not an abuse of discretion to award a fee for all of Appellee’s attorneys’ time where one of the firm’s attorneys, who was heavily involved in the case, testified as to the efforts expended by the firm. It was not necessary for each attorney to testify. All of the attorneys’ time records were in evidence without objection.
As to all other issues raised, we also affirm.
POLEN and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dennis v. Rodriguez, 762 So. 2d 961 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Dennis v. American Medical Express Corp., 763 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Toledo v. Wisk, 754 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Taylor Creek Village Ass’n, Inc. v. Houghton, 349 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).…
-
Michael R. Banks v. Maxwell Bldg. Corp., 925 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…da Statutes (2003) attorney’s fees against attorney Michael Banks. We reject his arguments on the merits as well as his argument that the court erred in awarding fees for a paralegal who did not testify at the evidentiary hearing. In Toledo v. Wisk, 754 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), we held that it was not necessary for all attorneys who worked on a case to testify at an attorney’s fee hearing, where an attorney who was most heavily involved testified as to the efforts expended by the [*474] firm. It follow…
-
RM & Assocs. Consulting, Inc. v. People's Tr. Ins. Co. (Fla. 4th DCA 2026)
Authorities Cited
- Standard Guar. Ins. Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 1990)
- Minouche Noel v. Broward Gen. Med. Ctr., 725 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)