CAROLINE PEACOCK, APPELLANT,
v.
MYRON L. ACE AND M.L. ACE, INC., 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.
Caroline Peacock appeals a final judgment awarding $272,499.33 to Myron L. Ace and M.L. Ace, Inc. The Florida Second District Court of Appeal reverses, finding the judgment erroneous because it includes an unentitled award of $181,019.41 in accelerated rent and lacks required findings supporting the attorney's fees award.
The final judgment is reversed because it includes an unentitled award of $181,019.41 for accelerated rent. Additionally, the attorney's fees award is fundamentally erroneous on its face for lacking required findings under Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Rowe, and this error is apparent despite the absence of a transcript. The case is remanded for entry of a corrected judgment with proper attorney's fees findings.
[1] A final judgment is fundamentally erroneous on its face when it includes an award of accelerated rent to which a party is not entitled.
[2] An award of attorney's fees is fundamentally erroneous on its face if the order lacks specific findings concerning the number of hours reasonably expended and the reasona…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“The final judgment is erroneous on its face because it includes an award of $181,019.41 for accelerated rent to which Ace was not entitled.”
Establishes the primary basis for reversal regarding the damages calculation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA final judgment was entered in favor of Ace for $272,499.33. The judgment included an award of $181,019.41 for accelerated rent, which was supported …
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 Appellate Review Without Transcript cases and more on FLexlaw
Caroline Peacock appeals an adverse final judgment for $272,499.33 entered in favor of Myron L. Ace and M.L. Ace, Inc. (collectively, Ace). The final judgment is erroneous on its face because it includes an award of $181,019.41 for accelerated rent to which Ace was not entitled.1 See Grove Rest. & Bar, Inc. v. Razook, 571 So.2d 596, 597 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Coast Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. DeLoach, 362 So.2d 982, 984 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). Accordingly, we reverse the final judgment and remand for the entry of a new judgment that correctly calculates Ace’s damages.
Ms. Peacock also argues that the final judgment’s award of attorney’s fees in favor of Ace is fundamentally erroneous on its face because it does not contain specific findings concerning the number of hours reasonably expended and the reasonableness of the attorney’s hourly rate. See Markovich v. Markovich, 974 So.2d 600, 601 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). We note that the record lacks a transcript of the final hearing or an approved statement of the proceedings as authorized by Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.200(b)(4). “Even so, this court previously has determined that the absence of the required findings in the written order renders the order fundamentally erroneous on its face and that the lack of transcript ‘does not preclude appellate review.’ ” Harris v. McKinney, 20 So.3d 400, 403 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (quoting Baratta v. Valley Oak Homeowners’ Ass’n at the Vineyards, 891 So.2d 1063, 1065 n. 4 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)). Therefore, on remand, the circuit court must make the necessary written findings in accordance with Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145 (Fla.1985).
Here, as we did in Harris, we certify the following question to be one of great public importance pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(a)(2)(A)(v):
IS AN ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEY’S FEES PURSUANT TO FLORIDA PATIENT’S COMPENSATION FUND V. ROWE, 472 So.2d 1145 (Fla.1985), THAT LACKS THE REQUIRED FINDINGS REGARDING THE NUMBER OF HOURS REASONABLY EXPENDED AND THE REASONABLENESS OF THE HOURLY RATE CHARGED FUNDAMENTALLY ERRONEOUS ON ITS FACE, THUS REQUIRING REVERSAL, EVEN WHEN THE APPELLATE RECORD DOES NOT INCLUDE A TRANSCRIPT OR APPROVED STATEMENT OF THE PROCEEDINGS BELOW?
Reversed; question certified.
VTLLANTI, WALLACE, and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
MacArty v. MacArty, 29 So. 3d 434 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…CA 1991). We certify the following question to be one of great public importance pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(a)(2)(A)(v), as this court did in Harris v. McKinney, 20 So. 3d 400, 404 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009), and Peacock v. Ace, 24 So. 3d 750, (Fla. 2d DCA 2009): IS AN ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEY’S FEES PURSUANT TO FLORIDA PATIENT’S COMPENSATION FUND V. ROWE, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla.1985), THAT LACKS THE REQUIRED FINDINGS REGARDING THE NUMBER OF HOURS REASONABLY EXPENDED AND THE REASONABLENES…
-
Elma Hett v. Barron-Lunde (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)…final summary judgment because material portions of the record upon which trial court based its findings was omitted on appeal). However, the error here appears on the face of the discovery order, and so review is appropriate. See Peacock v. Ace, 24 So. 3d 750, 751 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) ("[T]his court previously has determined that the absence of the required findings in the written order renders the order fundamentally erroneous on its face and that the lack of transcript 'does not preclude appellate review…
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Patient's Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985)
- Eneida Chirino v. Chirino, 710 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- Baratta v. Valley OAK Homeowners' Ass'n AT THE Vineyards, Inc., 891 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Coast Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Guion T. DeLOACH, 362 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
- Johnson v. Dep't of Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles, 905 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
- Shep Harris, Jr. v. Zenoria T. McKINNEY, 20 So. 3d 400 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)
- Markovich v. Bridgette Markovich, 974 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)
- The Grove Rest. & BAR, Inc. v. Razook, 571 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)