Atlantic Coast Development Corp. v. Hofco, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Atlantic Coast Development Corp. v. Hofco, Inc.

405 So. 2d 797, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 21684

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 18, 1981·No. No. 79-1983·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

ON REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

We vacate our opinion filed September 9, 1981 and grant rehearing. It is now apparent that appellant did object at the trial court to an award of attorney’s fees to appellees on the ground that appellees’ counsel failed to testify at the hearing on their motion for fees. As we held in Cohen v. Cohen, 400 So.2d 463 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), the testimony of appellees’ attorney should have been required by the trial court. Accordingly, we grant the motion for rehearing, and reverse and remand to the trial court for the opportunity for a further hearing. See Cohen, supra, at 465.

LETTS, C. J., and MOORE and GLICK-STEIN, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ON REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

We vacate our opinion filed September 9, 1981 and grant rehearing. It is now apparent that appellant did object at the trial court to an award of attorney’s fees to appellees on the ground that appellees’ counsel failed to testify at the hearing on their motion for fees. As we held in Cohen v. Cohen, 400 So.2d 463 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), the testimony of appellees’ attorney should have been required by the trial court. Accordingly, we grant the motion for rehearing, and reverse and remand to the trial court for the opportunity for a further hearing. See Cohen, supra, at 465.

LETTS, C. J., and MOORE and GLICK-STEIN, JJ., concur.

Atlantic Coast Development Corp. v. Hofco, Inc., 405 So. 2d 797, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 21684 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

405 So. 2d 797 (Atlantic Coast Development Corp. v. Hofco, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related