JITEN SHETH, APPELLANT,
v.
C.C. ALTAMONTE JOINT VENTURE, 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 the trial court's findings regarding reasonable attorney hours and hourly rate but reversed and remanded to correct the judgment amount to match the court's own calculations.
A trial court's findings of reasonable attorney hours and hourly rate are supported by competent and substantial evidence and affirmed, but the judgment amount must be corrected to reflect the proper mathematical calculation of those findings.
[1] A trial court's findings regarding reasonable attorney hours and hourly rates in fee-shifting cases are reviewed for competent and substantial evidence support and cannot…
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 intelligenceDr. Sheth signed a guarantee agreement obligating him to reimburse AJV for expenses incurred in enforcing the underlying lease and guarantee. AJV prev…
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 Fee-Shifting Provisions cases and more on FLexlaw
Dr. Jiten Sheth, appearing pro se, appeals a final judgment awarding attorneys’ fees and costs in favor of C.C. Altamonte Joint Venture, (“AJV”), following its success in underlying litigation regarding Dr. Sheth’s tenancy in a building owned by AJV. Dr. Sheth was liable for the fees and costs pursuant to a guarantee agreement that he signed, in which he agreed to reimburse AJV for expenses it incurred “in endeavoring to collect or enforce the ... [underlying lease and] guarantee[.]” The trial court found that ATV’s attorneys reasonably expended 228 hours in its enforcement efforts. Although Dr. Sheth vigorously disputes this finding, it is supported by competent and substantial evidence. Accordingly, the finding cannot be disturbed on appeal. E.g., Bill's Equipment and Rentals v. Teel, 498 So.2d 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). The trial court found $251.00 to be a reasonable blended hourly rate for the matter, and this finding is also supported by competent and substantial evidence. Multiplying the rate times the hours yields a fee amount of $57,228.00. Adding the awarded cost amount of $2,822.30 should yield a judgment in the amount of $60,050.30. However, the judgment awarded fees and costs totaling $70,980.30, which is inconsistent with the court’s time, fee and cost findings. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s findings but reverse the judgment. On remand, the trial court is directed to enter a corrected judgment in the amount of $60,050.30, plus post-judgment interest at the statutory rate.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.
MONACO, C.J., LAWSON, J., and EDWARDS-STEPHENS, S„ Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Bill's Equip. & Rentals & U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Teel, 498 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)