TED DOUKAS, APPELLANT,
v.
FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, DAVID FREDERICK, PATRICIA FREDERICK AND QUANTUM PARTNERS, INC., D/B/A 1ST CAPITAL LENDING TRUST, 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.
Ted Doukas appeals a prevailing party attorney's fee judgment awarded to Facilities Development Corporation and others after they obtained summary judgment in a bond premium dispute. The court affirms the decision to award fees but reverses and remands because the trial court failed to make the specific findings required under Rowe v. Florida Patient's Compensation Fund regarding hourly rates, hours expended, and enhancement/reduction factors.
While the trial court's decision to award attorney's fees is affirmed, the fee judgment is reversed and remanded because the trial court failed to make the specific Rowe findings necessary to support the award. A bare statement that time and hourly rates are reasonable is insufficient; the court must articulate findings concerning each Rowe factor.
[1] A trial court must set forth specific findings concerning the hourly rate, the number of hours reasonably expended, and the appropriateness of reduction or enhancement fa…
[2] The presence of competent, substantial evidence to support an attorney's fee award does not obviate the need for specific findings by the trial court.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 law is well established that the trial court must set forth specific findings concerning the hourly rate, the number of hours reasonably expended and the appropriateness of reduction or enhancement factors.”
Establishes the mandatory requirement for Rowe findings in attorney's fee awards
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn May 2009, Quantum Partners and Ted Doukas sued Facilities Development Corporation and David and Patricia Frederick to recover the balance of a prem…
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
In this appeal, appellant Ted Doukas challenges a prevailing party attorney’s fee judgment. While Doukas raises myriad challenges to the judgment, we find merit in only one of his arguments — the judgment’s lack of required Rowe1 findings— and write solely to address this issue.
In May of 2009, Quantum Partners, Inc. and Ted Doukas filed suit against Facilities Development Corporation (FDC) and David and Patricia Frederick, seeking to recover the balance of the premium allegedly owed for a payment and performance bond. After obtaining a favorable final *304summary judgment on the claims, FDC and the Fredericks sought prevailing party attorney’s fees from both Quantum Partners and Doukas, relying upon a fee provision in the General Agreement of Indemnity and section 627.428, Florida Statutes. Ultimately, FDC and the Fredericks settled with Quantum Partners, electing to pursue their claim for fees solely against Doukas.
Counsel for FDC and the Fred-ericks submitted affidavits seeking a total award for fees and costs of $141,962.64 ($120,056.52 in the first affidavit and $21,906.12 in the supplemental affidavit). The trial court awarded a reduced sum of $117,992.52. The only finding in the judgment to substantiate the award is a statement that “[t]he Court finds that the time spent by said attorneys and the hourly rates charged by said attorneys are reasonable.” This is insufficient. “The law is well established that the trial court must set forth specific findings concerning the hourly rate, the number of hours reasonably expended and the appropriateness of reduction or enhancement factors.” Powell v. Powell, 55 So.3d 708, 709 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (citing Rowe, 472 So.2d at 1151). The presence of competent, substantial evidence to support the award does not obviate the need for the findings. Id. “Where there is nothing in the trial court’s order that allows the appellate court to discern whether ... [the Rowe ] factors were considered in determining a reasonable attorney’s fee, a fee award simply taking the amount charged by the attorney and determining it to be reasonable is improper and an abuse of discretion.” Campbell v. Campbell, 46 So.3d 1221, 1223 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010); see also Voronin v. Voronina, 995 So.2d 1049, 1050 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (recognizing fee judgment without Rowe findings is fundamentally erroneous on its face and subject to reversal regardless of preservation). While we affirm the trial court’s decision to award attorney’s fees, we are compelled to reverse the fee judgment and remand the matter so that the trial court may make the necessary findings.
Reversed and Remanded.
STEVENSON, TAYLOR and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dieter Nagl v. Monika Navarro, 187 So. 3d 359 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…Rowe ] factors were considered .in determining a reasonable attorney’s fee, a fee award simply taking-the amount charged by the attorney and determining it to be reasonable is improper and an abuse of discretion.’ ” Doukas v. Facilities Dev. Corp., 92 So. 3d 303, 304 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (alteration and omission in original) (quoting Campbell v. Campbell, 46 So. 3d 1221, 1223 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)). We are unable to determine from the final judgments whether the trial court made the appropriate findings as to…
-
Santoro v. Country Manors Ass'n (15th Cir. Ct. App. Div. 2014)…l court order the hourly rate of the award, the number of hours the attorney worked on the case, or whether the trial court considered the reasonableness of the hourly rate and number of hours worked on the case. See Doukas v. Facilities Dev. Corp., 92 So. 3d 303, 304 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (reversing and remanding the fee judgment for attorney's fees because although affidavits were submitted to indicate reasonable attorney's fees, the trial court only stated that the court found the hourly rate and time spent…
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Patient's Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985)
- Campbell v. Dina M. Campbell, 46 So. 3d 1221 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- Powell v. Selene Powell, 55 So. 3d 708 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)
- Dmytro Voronin v. Olena Voronina, 995 So. 2d 1049 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)