BARRON CHASE SECURITIES, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
KATHRYN B. MOSER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE KATHRYN B. MOSER REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST, 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.
On remand from the Florida Supreme Court, the appellate court affirms that Moser prevailed on her statutory claim and is entitled to attorney's fees, but reverses and remands certain aspects of the fee award for recalculation. The court holds that interest on fees should accrue from the trial court's award date (not the arbitration award date) and excludes fees incurred in litigating the fee amount itself.
Interest on attorney's fees accrues from the date the trial court determines entitlement to fees, not from the arbitration award date. Additionally, attorney's fees may be awarded for litigating entitlement to fees, but not for time spent litigating the amount of fees.
[1] Entitlement to attorney's fees is determined by the circuit court, not an arbitration panel, absent a contrary agreement between the parties.
[2] Interest on an attorney's fee award begins to accrue from the date entitlement to the fee is determined by the circuit court.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Interest on an attorney's fee award begins to accrue from the date entitlement to the fee is determined.”
Establishes the legal standard for when interest on fee awards accrues
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMoser had an arbitration matter against Barron Chase Securities. The arbitration award language indicated that Moser prevailed on her statutory claim.…
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 Attorney'S Fees Entitlement cases and more on FLexlaw
STRINGER, Judge.
This case is before us on remand from the Supreme Court of Florida. Moser v. Barron Chase Sec., Inc., 783 So. 2d 231 (Fla.2001).
The supreme court quashed our earlier decision and remanded this case for further proceedings based on its finding that the trial court correctly interpreted language in the arbitration award as indicating that Moser prevailed on her statutory claim and therefore is entitled to attorney’s fees in this case. However, Moser’s fee award must be reconsidered by the trial court.
The trial court granted interest on Moser’s fee award retroactive to the date of the arbitration award. Interest on an attorney’s fee award begins to accrue from the date entitlement to the fee is determined. Quality Engineered Installation, Inc., v. Higley S., Inc., 670 So. 2d 929 (Fla.1996). Absent an agreement between the parties, the circuit court, and not the arbitration panel, has jurisdiction to determine entitlement to attorney’s fees. Therefore the court erred in finding that Moser’s entitlement to fees was determined as of the date of the arbitration award. Tumberry Assoc. v. Serv. Station Aid, Inc., 651 So. 2d 1173 (Fla.1995).
Also, the trial court erred in awarding Moser attorney’s fees incurred in litigating the amount of fees. Attorney’s fees may be awarded for litigating the issue of entitlement to fees but not for time expended litigating the amount of fees. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Palma, 629 So. 2d 830 (Fla.1993); Nat’l Portland Cement Co. v. Goudie, 718 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998).
Accordingly, we affirm the confirmation of the arbitrator’s decision and the determination as to entitlement to attorney’s fees. However, on remand, the court should enter an order indicating that Mos-er is entitled to a fee award with interest accruing from the date of the trial court’s original order awarding attorney’s fees. The new fee award should not include fees generated while litigating the amount of fees.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for the determination of a fee award consistent with this opinion.
PARKER, A.C.J., and CASANUEVA, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Paladyne Corp. v. Weindruch, 867 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…dable for establishing the amount of the fee. See, e.g., Mediplex Const. of Fla. v. Schaub, 856 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); North Dade Church of God, Inc. v. JM Statewide, Inc., 851 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Barron Chase Sec., Inc. v. Moser, 794 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Mangel v. Bob Dance Dodge, Inc., 739 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Seminole County v. Butler, 676 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 686 So. 2d 581 (Fla.1996). Contra, Diaz v. Santa Fe Healthcare, Inc., 642 So. 2d 765 (F…
-
Wight v. Wight, 880 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…ifferent contexts. See, e.g., Fleet Servs. Corp. v. Reise, 857 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (concerning fees sought pursuant to § 57.105, Fla. Stat. (1997), in a case involving the collection of a promissory note); Barron Chase Sec., Inc. v. Moser, 794 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (involving arbitration award against securities dealer pursuant to § 517.211(6), Fla. Stat. (1997)); Nat’l Portland Cement Co. v. Goudie, 718 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (denying fees for litigating amount of fees in wrongful te…1 / 2
-
Bates v. Islamorada, 939 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…32, 1336 (Fla.1994); State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Palma, 629 So. 2d 830, 833 (Fla.1993); Wight v. Wight, 880 So. 2d 692, 695 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Paladyne Corp. v. Weindruch, 867 So. 2d 630, 634 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Barron Chase Sec., Inc. v. Moser, 794 So. 2d 649, 650 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Oruga Corp., Inc. v. AT & T Wireless of Fla., Inc., 712 So. 2d 1141, 1145 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Eisman v. Ross, 664 So. 2d 1128, 1129 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). A review of these cases, however, reveals that the fees awards relied…
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
- State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Palma, 629 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 1993)
- Quality Engineered Installation, Inc. v. Higley S., Inc., 670 So. 2d 929 (Fla. 1996)
- Turnberry Assocs. v. Serv. Station AID, Inc., 651 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 1995)
- Moser v. Barron Chase Sec., Inc., 783 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 2001)
- Nat'l Portland Cement Co. v. Federico A. Goudie, 718 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)