Fernandez v. Bayless

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Fernandez v. Bayless

558 So. 2d 1052, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 1260, 1990 WL 18472

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 2, 1990·No. No. 89-01830·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

SCHEB, Acting Chief Judge.

The appellant, Victor R. Fernandez, raises three points on appeal. After hearing oral argument and reviewing the briefs and record, we find merit only in the last issue raised. The appellant contends that the trial court erred when it awarded attorney fees without making specific findings as required by Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145 (Fla.1985).

[1053] The record supports the trial court’s award. Moreover, it appears from the record that the trial judge considered the factors required in the fixing of a reasonable attorney fee. However, the trial judge failed to include in the judgment specific findings as to hourly rate and the number of hours reasonably expended as required by Rowe.

We affirm the final judgment, but remand for the entry of an amended order containing the findings required by Rowe. See Woodruff & Sons, Inc. v. Pary, Inc., 543 So.2d 467 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).

HALL and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.

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

SCHEB, Acting Chief Judge.

The appellant, Victor R. Fernandez, raises three points on appeal. After hearing oral argument and reviewing the briefs and record, we find merit only in the last issue raised. The appellant contends that the trial court erred when it awarded attorney fees without making specific findings as required by Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145 (Fla.1985).

[1053] The record supports the trial court’s award. Moreover, it appears from the record that the trial judge considered the factors required in the fixing of a reasonable attorney fee. However, the trial judge failed to include in the judgment specific findings as to hourly rate and the number of hours reasonably expended as required by Rowe.

We affirm the final judgment, but remand for the entry of an amended order containing the findings required by Rowe. See Woodruff & Sons, Inc. v. Pary, Inc., 543 So.2d 467 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).

HALL and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.

Fernandez v. Bayless, 558 So. 2d 1052, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 1260, 1990 WL 18472 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

558 So. 2d 1052 (Fernandez v. Bayless) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related