CHARLES D. BADER, APPELLANT,
v.
MEROS, SMITH & OLNEY, P.A., 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 that Bader was obligated to pay attorneys' fees under the fee agreement but reversed and remanded because the trial court failed to make specific Rowe findings regarding hourly rate, hours expended, and other factors supporting the fee award.
A trial court must make specific findings regarding hourly rate, hours reasonably expended, and other relevant factors when awarding attorneys' fees, and a judgment lacking such findings is fundamentally erroneous.
[1] A final judgment awarding attorneys' fees must include specific findings regarding the hourly rate, number of hours reasonably expended, and other factors considered in d…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“final judgment for attorney's fees and costs fundamentally erroneous on its face for failure to include specific Rowe findings”
Court cited Baratta v. Valley Oak Homeowners' Ass'n to establish that Rowe findings are mandatory in attorney fee awards
Bader and a law firm had an attorney-client fee agreement. The law firm sued Bader for attorneys' fees and costs, and the trial court granted the law …
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 Action For Attorney'S Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
WHATLEY, Judge.
Charles D. Bader appeals the final judgment entered by the trial court after it heard and granted the motion for summary judgment filed by Meros, Smith & Olney, P.A. (the law firm) in the latter’s action against Bader for attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to the parties’ attorney-client fee agreement. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Bader has failed to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of material fact regarding his obligation under the fee Hgreement. However, in the final judgment, the trial court failed to make specific «dings as to the hourly rate, the number of hours reasonably expended, and any other factors it considered in determining the amount of the award of attorneys’ fees to the law firm. See Guardianship of Halpert v. Martin S. Rosenbloom, P.A., 698 So. 2d 938 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (stating that Rowe1 findings are mandatory) (cited in Baratta v. Valley Oak Homeowners’ Ass’n at the Vineyards, Inc., 891 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 2d DCA Nov.19, 2004) (holding final judgment for attorney’s fees and costs fundamentally erroneous on its face for failure to include specific Rowe findings)).
Accordingly, we affirm the final judgment insofar as it finds that Bader is obligated to the law firm pursuant to the parties’ attorney-client fee agreement, but we reverse the amount of fees awarded and remand with directions that the trial court make the findings required by Rowe to support an award of fees.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.
KELLY and CANADY, JJ., concur. . Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla.1985).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Shep Harris, Jr. v. Zenoria T. McKINNEY, 20 So. 3d 400 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…all attorney's fees orders that lack Rowe findings. See Parton v. Palomino Lakes Prop. Owners Ass'n, 928 So. 2d 449, 453 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Moyle v. Parkland Condo. Ass’n, 898 So. 2d 259, 259 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Bader v. Meros, Smith & Olney, P.A., 916 So. 2d 6, 6 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Guardianship of Halpert v. Martin S. Rosenbloom, P.A., 698 So. 2d 938, 939 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). . 1 acknowledge that in Boyle, 485 So. 2d at 879, this court reversed because "[ajllhough ... the record contained] sufficient, c…
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Patient's Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985)
- Jami Robin Greenberg v. Greenberg, 698 So. 2d 938 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Baratta v. Valley OAK Homeowners' Ass'n AT THE Vineyards, Inc., 891 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)