Claudia Umana v. MRG Glazing Contractors, Inc.

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: May 20, 2026
• Docket: 3D2025-0189
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed May 20, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D25-0189 Lower Tribunal No. 23-988-CA-01 ________________

Claudia Umana, Appellant,

vs.

MRG Glazing Contractors, Inc., Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Peter R. Lopez, Judge.

Patrick J. Thompson (Lake Mary), for appellant.

Delgado Vega, PLLC and Daniel R. Vega and John B. Hinz, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, LOGUE and LOBREE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Claudia Umana challenges an award of attorney’s fees in a final judgment of foreclosure of a construction lien, contending among other

things that the amount of fees requested and the use of a contingency fee

multiplier is not supported by competent, substantial evidence. “This Court

reviews an award of attorney’s fees for abuse of discretion. A trial court’s

determination of whether claims are inextricably intertwined is a question of

law reviewed de novo.” Aquastar Holdings LLC v. Avant Design Grp., Inc.,

421 So. 3d 767, 770 n.3 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025) (quoting Shelly L. Hall, M.D.,

P.A. v. White, 97 So. 3d 907, 909 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)). Because Umana

has not furnished this court with a transcript of the fee hearing, we affirm.

See Val v. Gentera Ctr. for Plastic Surgery, LLC, 419 So. 3d 793 (Fla. 3d

DCA 2025); Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150,

1152 (Fla. 1979) (burden is on appellant to demonstrate error and “[e]ven

when based on erroneous reasoning, a conclusion or decision of a trial court

will generally be affirmed if the evidence or an alternative theory supports

it”).

Affirmed.