Colonel v. Melrose Area Property Owners

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Colonel v. Melrose Area Property Owners

930 So. 2d 755, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 6813, 2006 WL 1222481

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided May 5, 2006·No. Nos. 5D04-3781, 5D05-1825·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Sua sponte, we consolidate these two appeals, which emanate from the same lower court proceeding. We affirm the lower court’s orders in all respects except that portion of the order dated June 2, 2005, awarding attorney’s fees to Appel-lees, Carl and Julie Schlick. Because the attorney’s fee award was based on a joint proposal for settlement that did not state the amount attributable to each offering party, the proposal was defective and the fee award erroneous. Lamb v. Matetzschk, 906 So.2d 1037, 1042 (Fla.2005); D.A.B. Constructors, Inc. v. Oliver, 914 So.2d 462 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART.

SHARP, W., TORPY and LAWSON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Sua sponte, we consolidate these two appeals, which emanate from the same lower court proceeding. We affirm the lower court’s orders in all respects except that portion of the order dated June 2, 2005, awarding attorney’s fees to Appel-lees, Carl and Julie Schlick. Because the attorney’s fee award was based on a joint proposal for settlement that did not state the amount attributable to each offering party, the proposal was defective and the fee award erroneous. Lamb v. Matetzschk, 906 So.2d 1037, 1042 (Fla.2005); D.A.B. Constructors, Inc. v. Oliver, 914 So.2d 462 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART.

SHARP, W., TORPY and LAWSON, JJ., concur.

Colonel v. Melrose Area Property Owners, 930 So. 2d 755, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 6813, 2006 WL 1222481 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

930 So. 2d 755 (Colonel v. Melrose Area Property Owners) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related