ROBERT J. MORAITIS, P.A., APPELLANT,
v.
KALLIOPE VITAKIS-VACHINE, DAVID L. VALCHINE, WILLIAM F. MURPHY AND MURPHY & O'BRIEN, LLC, APPELLEES
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Attorney'S Fees Recovery cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, a lawyer who had represented the wife in a dissolution, appeals an order declining to award attorney’s fees he incurred in recovering his attorney’s fees. He alleges that his fees, which were set by a settlement agreement between the husband and wife, should have been promptly paid and not delayed by the former husband and his counsel, while the validity of the settlement was challenged. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the litigation which delayed the payment of appellant’s fee was not the type of improper conduct which would entitle appellant to attorney’s fees under section 57.105 or the inherent authority of the court. In addition, appellant s argument that he was entitled to interest at the statutory rate, while the funds to secure his fee were in the registry of the court, is without merit. It was appellant’s own actions which resulted in the money being transferred from an interest bearing account into the registry of the court. We further find the additional issues he raises and the cross-appeal to have no merit. Affirmed.
STONE, FARMER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Koch v. Koch, 47 So. 3d 320 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…power to award attorney’s fees for bad faith conduct as a sanction against an offending party, even in the absence of statutory authority. Bitterman v. Bitterman, 714 So. 2d 356, 365 (Fla.1998); see also Robert J. Moraitis, P.A. v. Vitakis-Vachine, 988 So. 2d 682, 682 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (noting that court can award fees as sanction under section 57.105 or based on the inherent authority of the court). However, “if a specific statute or rule applies, the trial court should rely on the applicable rule or stat…