Banks v. Maxwell Bldg. Corp.

925 So. 2d 473, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 5318, 2006 WL 931451
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedApril 12, 2006
Docket4D05-2515
StatusPublished

This text of 925 So. 2d 473 (Banks v. Maxwell Bldg. Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Banks v. Maxwell Bldg. Corp., 925 So. 2d 473, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 5318, 2006 WL 931451 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion

925 So.2d 473 (2006)

Michael R. BANKS, Appellant,
v.
MAXWELL BUILDING CORPORATION, Appellee.

No. 4D05-2515.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 12, 2006.

Julie K. Oldehoff of the Oldehoff Law Offices, Stuart, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

KLEIN, J.

We affirm a judgment awarding section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2003) attorney's fees against attorney Michael Banks. We reject his arguments on the merits as well as his argument that the court erred in awarding fees for a paralegal who did not testify at the evidentiary hearing. In Toledo v. Wisk, 754 So.2d 83 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), we held that it was not necessary for all attorneys who worked on a case to testify at an attorney's fee hearing, where an attorney who was most heavily involved testified as to the efforts expended by the *474 firm. It follows that if it is unnecessary for all attorneys to testify, it is unnecessary for a paralegal to testify. Affirmed.

POLEN and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Toledo v. Wisk
754 So. 2d 83 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
925 So. 2d 473, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 5318, 2006 WL 931451, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/banks-v-maxwell-bldg-corp-fladistctapp-2006.