JOEL EDWARD CHANDLER, APPELLANT,
v.
KCCS, 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.
Joel Chandler appealed a fee award under Florida Statute section 57.105(1) imposed by the trial court against him in favor of KCCS, Inc. The appellate court affirmed that sanctions were warranted but reversed the specific amount awarded due to insufficient evidentiary support, remanding for recalculation of the proper fee amount.
The court affirmed that sanctions were appropriate under section 57.105(1), but reversed the amount awarded because the evidence detailing the work performed was insufficient. The case was remanded for the trial court to determine the proper amount of fees based on competent evidence presented at the hearing.
[1] A fee award under section 57.105(1), Florida Statutes, requires evidence detailing the services performed and expert testimony as to the reasonableness of the fee.
[2] Competent evidence to support a fee award includes invoices, records, and other information detailing services provided, as well as attorney testimony.
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“To support a fee award, there must be the following: (1) evidence detailing the services performed and (2) expert testimony as to the reasonableness of the fee.”
Establishes the two-part standard required for all fee awards under Florida law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court held an evidentiary hearing and awarded attorney's fees to KCCS, Inc. against Chandler pursuant to section 57.105(1). The only evidenc…
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 Attorney'S Fees As Sanction cases and more on FLexlaw
Joel Chandler appeals from a final order awarding KCCS, Inc., fees pursuant to section 57.105(1), Florida Statutes (2016). We affirm the decision to award sanctions but reverse as to the amount awarded. Although there was evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing as to the hourly rate and the reasonableness of the fees, the only evidence detailing the work actually completed consisted of an affidavit and related documents that were neither introduced into evidence nor stipulated to at the hearing. The evidence was thus insufficient to support the award. See Saussy v. Saussy, 560 So.2d 1385, 1386 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (“To support a fee award, there must be the following: (1) evidence detailing the services performed and (2) expert testimony as to the reasonableness of the fee.” (citing Nivens v. Nivens, 312 So.2d 201 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975))); Diwakar v. Montecito Palm Beach Condo. Ass’n, 143 So.3d 958, 960 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (“Competent evidence includes invoices, records and other information detailing the services provided as well as the testimony from the attorney in support of the fee.” (quoting Brewer v. Solovsky, 945 So.2d 610, 611 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006))). Because there was some competent evidence presented to support the award, we remand for further proceedings as to the proper amount of fees. See Colson v. State Farm Bank, F.S.B., 183 So.3d 1038, 1040 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (“[W]here the record includes some evidence supporting the fee ... award, this court may remand for further proceedings.”); Morton v. Heathcock, 913 So.2d 662, 670 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (reversing fee award because record did “not include the essential evidentiary support” required but remanding for additional hearing because record contained “some competent substantial evidence to support a fee award”); see also Xhelaj v. McCormick 105, LLC, 219 So.3d 989 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017).
Reversed and remanded.
VILLANTI, SLEET, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pansky v. Pansky, 259 So. 3d 872 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)
-
Gibson, Esq. v. U. S. Bank (Fla. 2d DCA 2024)…649. 5 An award of attorney's fees must be supported by competent substantial evidence. See Black Point Assets, Inc. v. MCM Cap. Partners ex rel. Ventures Tr. 2013-I-H-R, 236 So. 3d 1134, 1136 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018); Chandler v. KCCS, Inc., 224 So. 3d 929, 929 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017). Not only must an expert testify as to the reasonableness of the attorney's fees, but evidence detailing the nature and extent of the services performed by the attorney must also be presented. See Saussy v. Saussy, 560…
Authorities Cited
- Diwakar v. Montecito Palm Beach Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 143 So. 3d 958 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)
- Nivens v. Nivens, 312 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
- Colson v. State Farm Bank, 183 So. 3d 1038 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)
- Saussy v. Saussy, 560 So. 2d 1385 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- Brewer v. Solovsky, 945 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- Morton v. Heathcock, 913 So. 2d 662 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)
- Genci Xhelaj and Teuta Kanni v. McCormick 105, LLC, 219 So. 3d 989 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)