VENICE GRAHAM
v.
RANDOLPH CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC.
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.
A trial court's mental impressions and opinions formed during the course of hearing evidence do not constitute fundamental error absent a timely objection, and an attorney's fees award is sufficiently supported when the court makes findings regarding reasonable hours and hourly rate.
[1] A trial court's mental impressions and opinions formed during the course of hearing evidence do not constitute fundamental error absent a timely objection at trial or in…
[2] An attorney's fees award is sufficiently supported by the trial court's findings regarding the reasonable number of hours and hourly rate, even if not extensively detaile…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“A trial judge may form mental impressions and opinions during the course of hearing evidence in a case.”
Court's discussion of whether trial court bias constitutes fundamental error
Venice Graham appealed a final judgment in a case against Randolph Construction Group, Inc. The trial court awarded attorney's fees and costs to the p…
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 Recoverable Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
VENICE GRAHAM, Appellant,
v.
RANDOLPH CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.
No. 4D18-3773
[April 8, 2020]
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Meenu Sasser, Judge;
L.T.
Case No. 502017CA013731XXXXMB AK.
Jeremy Dicker and Robin Bresky of the Law Offices of Robin Bresky, Boca Raton, for appellant.
Jose A. Rodriguez of The Soto Law Group, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the final judgment, concluding that it was supported by competent substantial evidence, or the issues raised on appeal were not properly preserved. As to appellant’s claim of fundamental error because the court showed bias in favor of the appellee during the trial, we note that this claim was never raised at trial nor in a motion for new trial. We do not deem it as fundamental error, as the trial court’s comments pointed out by appellant arose after the court had heard argument and reviewed the contracts involved in this case or observed witness testimony. A trial judge may form mental impressions and opinions during the course of hearing evidence in a case. Wargo v. Wargo, 669 So. 2d 1123, 1124 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
The appellant also challenges the order granting attorney’s fees, contending that the trial court failed to make appropriate findings of the reasonable number of hours and hourly rate. To the contrary, we conclude that the court made sufficient findings to support the award. We reverse, however, the order on costs. The court did not itemize those recoverable
2
costs pursuant to the Uniform Guidelines on Taxation of Costs. See Kirkland v. Thurmond, 519 So. 2d 717 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). It appears from our examination of the statement of costs, that many are not recoverable under the guidelines. The court may reconsider the costs on remand.
WARNER, KLINGENSMITH and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.
* * *
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Wargo v. Bettina Li Belles Wargo and Julie Koenig, 669 So. 2d 1123 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Kirkland v. Thurmond, 519 So. 2d 717 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)