UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY

v.

MULTIMED CARE, INC. A/A/O ALVARO RAMOS HERNANDEZ

Fla. 3d DCA | 2021-07-21

No. 21-0287

Nims

Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2021) Positive Treatment

Cited by 4 cases

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.

Synopsis

United Automobile Insurance Company appeals a final judgment awarding attorney's fees to Multimed Care, Inc., arguing the trial court erred by failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the reasonableness of the fees. The court reversed and remanded, holding that an evidentiary hearing is required based on controlling precedent from United Automobile Insurance Co. v. Professional Medical Group, Inc.

Holding

A trial court must conduct an evidentiary hearing on the reasonableness of attorney's fees before entering a final judgment awarding such fees. United Auto did not waive its right to such a hearing by failing to comply with an earlier case management order, as it timely requested a hearing pursuant to a subsequent 2020 case management order.

Headnotes

[1] A trial court must conduct an evidentiary hearing on the reasonableness of attorney's fees before awarding them, and a party preserves the right to such a hearing by time…

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

Facts & Procedural History

United Auto was ordered to pay attorney's fees to Multimed Care. The trial court entered a final judgment awarding these fees without holding an evide…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Topics

Reasonableness Of Attorney'S Fees

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Reasonableness Of Attorney'S Fees cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

Michael J. Neimand, for appellant. Feiler & Leach, P.L. and Martin E. Leach, for appellee. Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and GORDO and LOBREE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

United Automobile Insurance Company (“United Auto”) appeals from a final judgment awarding attorney’s fees to Multimed Care, Inc. (“Multimed Care”). United Auto argues that the trial court erred in awarding attorney’s fees without conducting an evidentiary hearing on the reasonableness of the fees. This issue is resolved by our recent decision in United Automobile Insurance Co. v. Professional Medical Group, Inc., 46 Fla. L. Weekly D1102a (Fla. 3d DCA May 12, 2012), which the trial court did not have the benefit of at the time it entered final judgment. Based on our precent, United Auto is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the reasonableness of attorney’s fees.¹ Id. Accordingly, we reverse the final judgment awarding attorney’s fees and remand for an evidentiary hearing.

Reversed and remanded.

Footnotes

1 Multimed Care argues that United Auto waived its right to an evidentiary hearing by failing to timely request one pursuant to a 2019 interim case management order. This argument is without merit. The record shows that the trial court did not enforce its 2019 case management order and subsequently entered another case management order in 2020. Pursuant to this order, United Auto timely requested an evidentiary hearing. “By requesting that the court hold an evidentiary hearing on the issue of attorney’s fees, appellant[ ] preserved [its] right to a hearing.”” Id. at D1102a (alteration in original) (quoting Petrovsky v. HSBC Bank, USA, 185 So. 3d 700, 702 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)).

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

Case v. United States, 633 F.2d 1240 (6th Cir. 1980)

…gnificant omission, since the Code specifically contemplates that dealers may segregate certain transactions in property similar to their stock in trade in order to qualify for capital gains tax treatment. 26 U.S.C. § 1236(a). Buono v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. No. 15, 1980 Tax Ct.Rep., Dec. 36,-925; Boykin v. Commissioner, 344 F. 2d 889, 894 n. 8 (5th Cir. 1975). In light of tne foregoing observations, we are constrained to hold that there was insufficient evidence to support the District Court’s conclusion tha…
Jolana S. Bradshaw v. The United States, 683 F.2d 365 (Ct. Cl. 1982)

…S treatment because receipts derived from the sale or exchange of the real property were not proscribed by section 1372(e)(5) or the regulations, regardless of the level of activity of the corporation. 57 T.C. at 556. See also Buono v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 187 (1980), where the Tax Court found “nothing unique or improper” about a subchapter S corporation being formed to acquire undeveloped real property, which it later sold as a single tract without engaging in any further activity. 74 T.C. at 196-97.…

Authorities Cited

Petrovsky v. HSBC Bank, 185 So. 3d 700 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw