Center of Osceola, Inc. v. William Hicks & Sons, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Center of Osceola, Inc. v. William Hicks & Sons, Inc.

549 So. 2d 1048, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2038, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 4848, 1989 WL 99701

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 31, 1989

DocketNo. 88-1829

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 549 So. 2d 1048 (Center of Osceola, Inc. v. William Hicks & Sons, Inc.) 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

Center of Osceola, Inc. v. William Hicks & Sons, Inc., 549 So. 2d 1048, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2038, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 4848, 1989 WL 99701 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

DAUKSCH, Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment in a breach of contract and mechanic’s lien easel We find points on appeal which merit our reversal. We affirm the balance of the judgment.

The attorneys fees calculations appear to be in error. The plaintiff’s attorney agreed to represent plaintiff for $75 per hour. He spent approximately 250 hours on the case. Thus the fee should have been $18,750. The trial judge awarded more than that. Upon remand the fee should either be reduced or justified in the order awarding the fee. The fill dirt and black dirt calculations are incorrect. The award should have been [1049]*1049based upon $3.75 per cubic yard rather than $8.50 and the record demonstrates 27,850 yards of fill were brought in as an extra. The judgment should reflect the proper amount for added fill, $104,437.50. Interest from the date the contractor’s affidavit was served should be added to that amount. The date was September 22,1986. All prejudgment interest calculations should be from that date, as well.

The judgment is reversed and this cause remanded for entry of judgment in accordance with this opinion.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED.

ORFINGER, J., and McNULTY, J.P., Associate Judge, concur.

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

DAUKSCH, Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment in a breach of contract and mechanic’s lien easel We find points on appeal which merit our reversal. We affirm the balance of the judgment.

The attorneys fees calculations appear to be in error. The plaintiff’s attorney agreed to represent plaintiff for $75 per hour. He spent approximately 250 hours on the case. Thus the fee should have been $18,750. The trial judge awarded more than that. Upon remand the fee should either be reduced or justified in the order awarding the fee. The fill dirt and black dirt calculations are incorrect. The award should have been [1049]*1049based upon $3.75 per cubic yard rather than $8.50 and the record demonstrates 27,850 yards of fill were brought in as an extra. The judgment should reflect the proper amount for added fill, $104,437.50. Interest from the date the contractor’s affidavit was served should be added to that amount. The date was September 22,1986. All prejudgment interest calculations should be from that date, as well.

The judgment is reversed and this cause remanded for entry of judgment in accordance with this opinion.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED.

ORFINGER, J., and McNULTY, J.P., Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

549 So. 2d 1048, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2038, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 4848, 1989 WL 99701, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/center-of-osceola-inc-v-william-hicks-sons-inc-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack