Brown v. PANHANDLE CITIZENS COALITION

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Brown v. PANHANDLE CITIZENS COALITION

12 So. 3d 860, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 6915, 2009 WL 1533033

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 3, 2009

Docket1D08-3998

StatusPublished

This text of 12 So. 3d 860 (Brown v. PANHANDLE CITIZENS COALITION) 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

Brown v. PANHANDLE CITIZENS COALITION, 12 So. 3d 860, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 6915, 2009 WL 1533033 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Diane Brown seeks review of an order of the administrative law judge imposing sanctions pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2006). The administrative law judge entered a comprehensive, well-reasoned order on the requests for sanctions filed by St. Joe Company and Clara Avenue, LLC. As Ms. Brown correctly argues, however, even if there is competent, substantial evidence in the record to support the award of attorney’s fees — which we are unable to ascertain from this record — the judge was required to specify the number of hours reasonably expended on her allegation that Clara Avenue, LLC’s Future Land Use Map amendment failed to protect historic or cultural resources. See Teat v. City of Apalachicola, 880 So.2d 819, 820 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Guardianship of Halpert v. Martin S. Rosenbloom, P.A., 698 So .2d 938, 939 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Accordingly, we reverse and remand, “albeit reluctantly, as the order awarding the fees fails to set forth findings as to the time reasonably expended.” Guardianship ofHalpert, 698 So.2d at 939.

Reversed and remanded.

WEBSTER, BENTON, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Diane Brown seeks review of an order of the administrative law judge imposing sanctions pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2006). The administrative law judge entered a comprehensive, well-reasoned order on the requests for sanctions filed by St. Joe Company and Clara Avenue, LLC. As Ms. Brown correctly argues, however, even if there is competent, substantial evidence in the record to support the award of attorney’s fees — which we are unable to ascertain from this record — the judge was required to specify the number of hours reasonably expended on her allegation that Clara Avenue, LLC’s Future Land Use Map amendment failed to protect historic or cultural resources. See Teat v. City of Apalachicola, 880 So.2d 819, 820 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Guardianship of Halpert v. Martin S. Rosenbloom, P.A., 698 So .2d 938, 939 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Accordingly, we reverse and remand, “albeit reluctantly, as the order awarding the fees fails to set forth findings as to the time reasonably expended.” Guardianship ofHalpert, 698 So.2d at 939.

Reversed and remanded.

WEBSTER, BENTON, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 So. 3d 860, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 6915, 2009 WL 1533033, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-panhandle-citizens-coalition-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack