CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
A. J. CUMMINGS, AND SADIE BELK CUMMINGS, HIS WIFE; BERTRAM M. GERSON AND CLARA D. GERSON, HIS WIFE; CLARA D. CLEMENTS; AMELIA KING BUCKLEY AND MARY JANE KING, AS CO-EXECUTORS UNDER THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF ISABEL P. KING, DECEASED; AND MORRIS WOLLAND AND BEATRICE WOLLAND, HIS WIFE, 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.
The City of Miami Beach appealed a trial judge's award of attorneys' fees and costs in a condemnation proceeding. The court affirmed the award, finding the condemnation case was exceptionally complex and the trial judge—who presided over the entire proceeding—was best positioned to determine reasonable fees.
The court affirmed the trial judge's award of attorneys' fees and costs, finding that the trial judge did not exceed judicial discretion and properly considered the exceptional complexity of the condemnation proceeding.
[1] A trial judge who presided throughout condemnation proceedings is in a better position than expert witnesses to determine the reasonable value of attorneys' fees.
[2] Testimony regarding reasonable attorneys' fees is not binding upon the court, even when presented by expert witnesses.
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“Although testimony with reference to reasonable attorney fees may and in most cases should be heard and considered it is not binding upon the court particularly in the case wherein the judge who fixes the fees presided throughout the entire proceeding in the nisi prius court. He is usually in a better position than are the lawyers who testify as expert witnesses to know the amount of work necessarily done and the complexities of the legal problems involved.”
Establishes the standard that trial judges have discretion in setting attorney fees and are best positioned to evaluate reasonableness based on their direct observation of the case.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe City of Miami Beach initiated condemnation proceedings against multiple properties owned by the appellees. The case involved complex legal issues …
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 Condemnation Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant city instituted condemnation proceedings against certain properties owned by the numerous appellees herein. This appeal pertains to the trial judge’s order taxing costs and awarding attorneys’ fees. Other such costs and fees arising out of this same litigation have been reviewed by this court earlier in the case of City of Miami Beach v. Cummings, Fla.App.1969, 228 So.2d 109.
It is the appellant’s contention that the court exceeded its judicial discretion and entered attorneys’ fees which should shock the judicial conscience.1 We find that the record contains numerous affidavits filed on behalf of the attorneys who received their fees by court award in this case. Moreover, strong authority exists which reiterates the general rule stated in Florida East Cost Railway Company v. Martin County, Fla.1965, 171 So.2d 873, 883:
“Although testimony with reference to reasonable attorney fees may'and in most cases should be heard and"considered it is not binding upon the court particularly in the case wherein the judge who fixes the fees presided throughout the entire proceeding in the nisi prius court. He is usually in a better position than are the lawyers who testify as expert witnesses to know the amount of work necessarily done and the complexities of the legal problems involved. We find no reason to disturb the * * ' * attorney fees. Indeed, had it not been for the affirmative defenses unsuccessfully urged by the appellant this suit would have been an ordinary and usual eminent domain proceeding.”
*759As in the above cited passage from the Martin County case, supra, we also find that this particular condemnation proceeding was exceptionally complex and difficult to try because of certain questions relating to the probability of rezoning, and the effect on the property value that such probability might have in the future.
In our earlier decision at 228 So.2d 109, we have set forth the leading authorities which delineate the specific factors to be considered in reviewing a challenged award of attorneys’ fees. We find that the same principles of law govern the instant situation and thereby affirm the court’s award of attorneys’ fees and the costs taxed against the condemning authority.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City OF Miami Beach v. Cummings, 266 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…or park purposes by eminent domain proceedings. For additional facts and pertinent holdings by this court relating to the proceedings, see: City of Miami Beach v. Cummings, Fla.App.1969, 228 So. 2d 109; City of Miami Beach v. Cummings, Fla.App.1970, 232 So. 2d 757; City of Miami Beach v. Cummings, Fla.App.1970, 233 So. 2d 842. In appeal No. 72-66, appellant City of Miami Beach seeks review of three orders: (a) a final summary judgment, entered May 17, 1971, which dismissed with prejudice the city’s fourth e…
-
City OF Miami Beach v. Cummings, 245 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 1970)…Certiorari denied. 232 So. 2d 757. ERVIN, C. J., and DREW, CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. Martin Cnty., 171 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 1965)
- City OF Miami Beach v. Cummings, 228 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)