HAROLD PRIDGEN AND WESTPORT INVESTORS, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
ELIZABETH D. AGOADO AND STEVEN C. JOHNSON, 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.
Pridgen and Westport Investors appeal a final judgment appointing a receiver and awarding attorney's fees. The court affirms the judgment on the merits but reverses the attorney's fees award due to lack of requisite findings and evidentiary support.
The court affirms the final judgment on the merits but reverses the attorney's fees award because the trial court failed to include specific findings regarding reasonable hourly rate and hours expended, and there was no evidentiary basis in the record to support the fee award.
[1] An award of attorney's fees requires specific findings as to a reasonable hourly rate and the hours reasonably expended litigating the issues.
[2] An award of attorney's fees must be supported by substantial competent evidence, such as testimony from the attorney performing services and an expert on the value of tho…
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“Florida law requires a trial court to support an award of attorney's fees with specific findings as to a reasonable hourly rate and the hours reasonably expended litigating the issues.”
Establishes the mandatory requirement for attorney's fee awards in Florida
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHarold Pridgen and Westport Investors were parties to a settlement agreement with Elizabeth D. Agoado and Steven C. Johnson. A trial court entered a F…
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 Hours Reasonably Expended cases and more on FLexlaw
FULMER, Judge.
Harold Pridgen and Westport Investors, Inc., appeal the Final Judgment Appointing Receiver and Default, arguing that the trial court erred because the final judgment grants relief in excess of what was agreed to in a settlement agreement and awards attorney’s fees without including requisite findings. We affirm the final judgment but reverse the award of attorney’s fees for the reasons explained below.
Florida law requires a trial court to support an award of attorney’s fees with specific findings as to a reasonable hourly rate and the hours reasonably expended litigating the issues. Fla. Patient’s Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145, 1151 (Fla.1985), holding modified on other grounds by Standard Guar. Ins. Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So. 2d 828 (Fla.1990). At a minimum, an award for attorney’s fees “requires a predicate of substantial competent evidence in the form of testimony by the attorney performing services and by an expert as to the value of those services.” Cooper v. Cooper, 406 So. 2d 1223, 1224 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). Failure to identify the precise hourly rate and the number of hours reasonably expended constitutes abuse of discretion and will result in reversal of a fee award. Highlands Carpentry Serv., Inc. v. Connone, 873 So. 2d 611, 613 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).
In this case, the final judgment contains no findings as to the number of hours reasonably expended or a reasonable hourly rate. And, there is no evidentiary basis for the trial court’s award of fees. The record is devoid of any expert testimony or even the testimony of the attorney who performed the services. When a fee award is not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record, the appellate court will reverse the award without remand for further findings. Tutor Time Merger Corp. v. MeCabe, 763 So. 2d 505, 506 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Brake v. Murphy, 736 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). Therefore, the award of attorney’s fees is reversed. No further proceedings are required.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part.
SALCINES and DAVIS, JJ., Concur.
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)…001); Markham v. Markham, 485 So. 2d 1299, 1301 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Ghannam v. Shelnutt, 199 So. 3d 295, 299–300 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016); Schwartz, 88 So. 3d at 1071; Rodriguez v. Altomare, 261 So. 3d 590, 591–92 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018); Pridgen v. Agoado, 901 So. 2d 961, 962 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Silva v. Hernandez, 595 So. 2d 230, 230 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), rev'd on other grounds by, 612 So. 2d 1377 (Fla. 1993). Since Lyle, other districts have occasionally discussed the logic behind the rule requiring expert testimon…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Patient's Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985)
- Standard Guar. Ins. Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 1990)
- Cooper v. Cooper, 406 So. 2d 1223 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Tutor Time Merger Corp. v. MeCABE, 763 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Brake v. Eve E. Murphy, 736 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Johnson v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 873 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
- Highlands Carpentry Serv., Inc. v. Connone, 873 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)