Calderon v. Peppermill at Kendall Lakes West, Condo. Assoc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Calderon v. Peppermill at Kendall Lakes West, Condo. Assoc.

857 So. 2d 351, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 15715, 2003 WL 22399615

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 22, 2003

DocketNo. 3D03-554

StatusPublished

This text of 857 So. 2d 351 (Calderon v. Peppermill at Kendall Lakes West, Condo. Assoc.) 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

Calderon v. Peppermill at Kendall Lakes West, Condo. Assoc., 857 So. 2d 351, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 15715, 2003 WL 22399615 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal of an award of attorney’s fees to predecessor counsel for plaintiff Ralph Calderon. On the issue of entitlement, there was conflicting evidence on whether predecessor counsel, Paul A. Sack, was discharged without cause, and whether successor counsel had conceded that Mr. Sack was entitled to compensation on quantum meruit. The conflicts in the evidence were resolved in favor of Mr. Sack. The court’s rulings are supported by the record. See Rosenberg v. Levin, 409 So.2d 1016, 1021 (Fla.1982); Afrazeh v. Miami Elevator Co. of America, 769 So.2d 399, 401 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). We find no abuse of discretion in the ruling on the motion for continuance.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal of an award of attorney’s fees to predecessor counsel for plaintiff Ralph Calderon. On the issue of entitlement, there was conflicting evidence on whether predecessor counsel, Paul A. Sack, was discharged without cause, and whether successor counsel had conceded that Mr. Sack was entitled to compensation on quantum meruit. The conflicts in the evidence were resolved in favor of Mr. Sack. The court’s rulings are supported by the record. See Rosenberg v. Levin, 409 So.2d 1016, 1021 (Fla.1982); Afrazeh v. Miami Elevator Co. of America, 769 So.2d 399, 401 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). We find no abuse of discretion in the ruling on the motion for continuance.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

857 So. 2d 351, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 15715, 2003 WL 22399615, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/calderon-v-peppermill-at-kendall-lakes-west-condo-assoc-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack