NEW WHITE LINEN, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
COMMERCIAL LAUNDRY EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC., 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.
Florida appellate court reversed an attorney's fees award because the trial court failed to make specific findings regarding time expended, hourly rate, and other relevant factors, requiring remand for proper findings or a new hearing.
A trial court must include specific findings regarding time reasonably expended, hourly rate, and other relevant factors in an order awarding attorney's fees.
[1] A trial court awarding attorney's fees must include specific findings regarding the time reasonably expended, hourly rate, and other relevant factors in its order, and fa…
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 intelligenceNew White Linen, Inc. appealed a trial court order granting Commercial Laundry Equipment Company's motion for attorney's fees without adequate finding…
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 Hourly Rate cases and more on FLexlaw
New White Linen, Inc. timely appeals the trial court’s order granting Commercial Laundry Equipment Company, Inc.’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees, arguing, among other things, that the trial court committed reversible error when it failed to set forth specific findings in the order regarding the time reasonably expended, *856the hourly rate, and other factors it may have considered. We agree that failing to include such findings was error. See Fla. Patient’s Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145, 1152 (Fla.1985); Guardianship of Halpert v. Rosenbloom, 698 So.2d 938, 939 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Because we do not have a transcript of the proceedings on appeal, we are unable to deem this error harmless as we did in Blits v. Renaissance Cruises, Inc., 647 So.2d 971, 972 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), and must, although reluctantly, reverse and remand for the trial court to make such findings in the order. See Rosenbloom, 698 So.2d at 939. If there is no hearing transcript or the trial court cannot recall what occurred at the hearing, we direct the court to conduct a new evi-dentiary hearing. See id. at 940. We find no merit to the other issues raised on appeal.
Affirmed in part, Reversed in part, and Remanded.
MAY and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
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)
- Blits v. Renaissance Cruises, Inc., 647 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)