WILLIAM J. CONDREN, APPELLANT,
v.
LOWRY J. BELL, JR. AND DIANA BELL, 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 trial court did not err in awarding attorney's fees and costs as a sanction, including fees incurred in determining the amount of fees.
Following a settlement agreement that was enforced by the court, the appellees moved for attorney's fees and costs. The trial court awarded these fees…
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 Enforcement Of Settlement Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
ON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION
We grant the appellee’s motion for clarification. The opinion issued on July 30, 2003, is hereby withdrawn and the following opinion is substituted in its place.
This is an appeal from a judgment for attorney’s fees and costs entered after a final judgment that enforced a settlement agreement. The appellant raises three issues. We find no error and affirm.
The parties entered into a settlement agreement following a dispute over improvements to an easement running between their respective properties. The trial court entered an order and final judgment enforcing the settlement agreement. This court affirmed. Condren v. Bell, 814 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).
The appellees moved for attorney’s fees and costs in the trial court. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court entered a final judgment of attorney’s fees and costs, making specific findings on all relevant factors. The court further found that “because the award of attorney’s fees and costs is a sanction” it should include those attorney’s fees incurred in determining .the amount of fees to be awarded. The court further awarded fees for the appellee’s expert witness.
Throughout the judgment, the trial court reiterated its intent to sanction the appellant for his conduct. We find no error in the court’s findings concerning the amount of time expended and the reasonable hourly rate. We further find that because the fees awarded for litigating the issue of fees was a sanction and supported by substantial competent evidence, the award does not run afoul of State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Palma, 629 So. 2d 830 (Fla.1993), or this court’s decisions in Dawn to Dusk, Inc. v. Hillsboro-Lyons Investors, Ltd., 801 So. 2d 283 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), or Tutor Time Merger Corp. v. MeCabe, 763 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). See also Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank v. Sandel, 766 So. 2d 302, (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (Farmer, J., concurring).
TAYLOR, HAZOURI and MAY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jacquelyn Bennett and Bobbie Sue Miller v. Marie-Christine Berges, 50 So. 3d 1154 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…es but not the amount of attorney’s fees.” However, this court has affirmed an award of attorney’s fees, including fees incurred in determining the amount of fees to be awarded, where the award of attorney’s fees was a sanction. See Condren v. Bell, 853 So. 2d 609, 610 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (holding that “because the fees awarded for litigating the issue of fees was a sanction and supported by substantial competent evidence, the award does not run afoul of [Palma ]”); accord Bates v. Islamorada, 939 So. 2d 171,…
-
Wight v. Wight, 880 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…udgment.” Id. at 833. We are cognizant that under certain limited circumstances, Florida courts have determined that they are not bound by Pal-ma and have permitted the awarding of fees for litigating the amount of fees. See, e.g., Condren v. Bell, 853 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (permitting fees for fees because the fee awarded was a sanction); Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank v. Sandel, 766 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (permitting fees for fees because federal law controlled the award of fees); Diaz v. SantaFe…
-
Nicolaos Mallas v. Mallas, 326 So. 3d 704 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021)…do. Ass’n, Inc. v. Waverly Las Olas, LLC, 88 So. 3d 386, 389 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012), and when the fees are awarded as a sanction under the “inequitable conduct doctrine,” see Bennett v. Berges, 50 So. 3d 1154, 1161 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010); Condren v. Bell, 853 So. 2d 609, 610 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Unlike Waverly, here the fee award was not based on a contract. And although the trial court also authorized fees as a sanction, the court’s fee order does not contain the requisite factual findings to support a “fees for…
Previewing 3 of 8 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)
- Tutor Time Merger Corp. v. MeCABE, 763 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank v. Sandel, 766 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Dawn TO Dusk, Inc. v. Hillsboro-Lyons Invs., Ltd., 801 So. 2d 283 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)