Barakat v. Sharp

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Barakat v. Sharp

674 So. 2d 174, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 4764, 1996 WL 253306

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 15, 1996

DocketNo. 95-2485

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 674 So. 2d 174 (Barakat v. Sharp) 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

Barakat v. Sharp, 674 So. 2d 174, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 4764, 1996 WL 253306 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff below, Maurice S. Barakat, appeals from an order awarding attorney’s fees in favor of the defendants. We affirm, in part, and reverse and remand, in part.

We find that the defendants did not waive their right to have the circuit court decide the issue of attorney’s fees and therefore, did not confer subject matter jurisdiction upon the arbitrator to award attorney’s fees. Turnberry Assocs. v. Service Station Aid, Inc., 651 So.2d 1173 (Fla.1995). Therefore, we conclude that the trial court had the proper authority to award attorney’s fees.

However, we reverse the portion of the order that calculates the actual award of attorney’s fees. The judgment is completely devoid of the necessary findings that a trial court is required to make to support the application of a contingency risk multiplier. See Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145 (Fla.1985), modified, Standard Guar. Ins. Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So.2d 828 (Fla.1990); Department of Agric. and Consumer Servs. v. Schick, 553 So.2d 361 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Therefore, we remand for the trial court to reconsider the applicability of the contingency risk multiplier. Moreover, upon remand, we instruct the trial court that when determining the number of hours reasonably spent by the defendants’ attorney, the trial court should not include any time spent in defending the quantum meruit count since that count does not arise out of the contract that allows for the award of attorney’s fees. Vining v. Carmona, 596 So.2d 154 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992).

Affirmed, in part; reversed and remanded, in part.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff below, Maurice S. Barakat, appeals from an order awarding attorney’s fees in favor of the defendants. We affirm, in part, and reverse and remand, in part.

We find that the defendants did not waive their right to have the circuit court decide the issue of attorney’s fees and therefore, did not confer subject matter jurisdiction upon the arbitrator to award attorney’s fees. Turnberry Assocs. v. Service Station Aid, Inc., 651 So.2d 1173 (Fla.1995). Therefore, we conclude that the trial court had the proper authority to award attorney’s fees.

However, we reverse the portion of the order that calculates the actual award of attorney’s fees. The judgment is completely devoid of the necessary findings that a trial court is required to make to support the application of a contingency risk multiplier. See Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145 (Fla.1985), modified, Standard Guar. Ins. Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So.2d 828 (Fla.1990); Department of Agric. and Consumer Servs. v. Schick, 553 So.2d 361 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Therefore, we remand for the trial court to reconsider the applicability of the contingency risk multiplier. Moreover, upon remand, we instruct the trial court that when determining the number of hours reasonably spent by the defendants’ attorney, the trial court should not include any time spent in defending the quantum meruit count since that count does not arise out of the contract that allows for the award of attorney’s fees. Vining v. Carmona, 596 So.2d 154 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992).

Affirmed, in part; reversed and remanded, in part.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

674 So. 2d 174, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 4764, 1996 WL 253306, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barakat-v-sharp-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack