SHARON YONTEF, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE, ETC.
v.
JASON COPELOW
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.
An award of attorney's fees is improper where it is supported only by the client's affidavit without testimony from the attorney who performed the services.
[1] An award of attorney's fees is improper when supported only by the client's affidavit without testimony from the attorney who performed the services.
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 intelligence“An award of attorney's fees is improper where it is not supported by the testimony of the attorney who performed the services.”
The court stated this rule when explaining why the $6,000.00 attorney's fee award had to be reversed.
Appellant Sharon Yontef and Appellee Jason Copelow had a Distribution Agreement. Copelow breached the agreement, and the trial court awarded Yontef $3…
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 Award cases and more on FLexlaw
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Charles E. Burton, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502014CP005960XXXSB.
Seth B. Burack of Fox Rothschild LLP, West Palm Beach, for appellant. Scott A Cole of Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., Miami, for appellee. LEVENSON, JEFFREY R., Associate Judge.
Appellant Sharon Yontef appeals the trial court’s order directing her to pay Appellee Jason Copelow $30,124.89 in connection with breaches of the parties’ Distribution Agreement. We affirm the trial court’s order in all respects without comment, but reverse the trial court’s award of $6,000.00 in attorney’s fees to Appellee.
The client’s affidavit was the only submission in support of the attorney’s fee claim. An award of attorney’s fees is improper where it is not supported by the testimony of the attorney who performed the services. See Rodriguez v. Campbell, 720 So. 2d 266, 267 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Because the record does not contain this essential evidentiary support, we reverse and remand to the circuit court to conduct an additional hearing on this issue.
Affirmed in part, Reversed in part, and Remanded.
2
CIKLIN and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.
* * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ruffenach v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co. for Ameriquest Mortg. Sec. Inc., 431 So. 3d 1055 (Fla. 6th DCA 2026)…. 2d 624, 627 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Cozzo v. Cozzo, 186 So. 3d 1054, 1055 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015); Trumbull Ins. Co. v. Wolentarski, 2 So. 3d 1050, 1055 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); Morton v. Heathcock, 913 So. 2d 662, 669 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Rodriguez v. Campbell, 720 So. 2d 266, 267 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Island Hoppers, 820 So. 2d at 970–71; [*6] Robin Roshkind, 45 So. 3d at 481; Nants v. Griffin, 783 So. 2d 363, 366 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Markham v. Markham, 485 So. 2d 1299, 1301 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Ghannam v. Shelnutt, 199…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Rodriguez v. David Campbell, M.D., 720 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)