Ferran Engineering Group, Inc. v. Di-Bar Electronics, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ferran Engineering Group, Inc. v. Di-Bar Electronics, Inc.

590 So. 2d 1104, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 12751, 1991 WL 273724

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 27, 1991

DocketNo. 91-889

StatusPublished

This text of 590 So. 2d 1104 (Ferran Engineering Group, Inc. v. Di-Bar Electronics, 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

Ferran Engineering Group, Inc. v. Di-Bar Electronics, Inc., 590 So. 2d 1104, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 12751, 1991 WL 273724 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

COBB, Judge.

Ferran Engineering Group, Inc. appeals an attorney’s fee award on the basis that the trial court did not make specific findings in regard to hours expended and hourly rate as required by Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145 (Fla.1985). The trial court based its award solely on a percentage of the recovery.

This court has held that a trial court must follow Rowe, which requires “specific” findings. Travelers Indem. Co. v. Duffy’s Little Tavern, Inc., 541 So.2d 689 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). In addition, even though a trial court has discretion to consider the amount recovered in conjunction with the amount claimed for an attorney’s fee, it is normally an abuse of discretion to abandon the lodestar methodology and limit that fee to a percentage of the amount recovered as damages. Beisswenger v. Omicron Construction & Development Co., Inc., 552 So.2d 240 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Fashion Tile & Marble, Inc. v. Alpha One Const. & Associates, Inc., 532 So.2d 1306, 1309 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Marchion Terrazzo, Inc. v. Altman, 372 So.2d 512 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).

Accordingly, the post-judgment order awarding an attorneys fee is reversed and the matter remanded to the trial court for a redetermination of that fee based on an application of Rowe.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

HARRIS and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur.

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

COBB, Judge.

Ferran Engineering Group, Inc. appeals an attorney’s fee award on the basis that the trial court did not make specific findings in regard to hours expended and hourly rate as required by Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145 (Fla.1985). The trial court based its award solely on a percentage of the recovery.

This court has held that a trial court must follow Rowe, which requires “specific” findings. Travelers Indem. Co. v. Duffy’s Little Tavern, Inc., 541 So.2d 689 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). In addition, even though a trial court has discretion to consider the amount recovered in conjunction with the amount claimed for an attorney’s fee, it is normally an abuse of discretion to abandon the lodestar methodology and limit that fee to a percentage of the amount recovered as damages. Beisswenger v. Omicron Construction & Development Co., Inc., 552 So.2d 240 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Fashion Tile & Marble, Inc. v. Alpha One Const. & Associates, Inc., 532 So.2d 1306, 1309 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Marchion Terrazzo, Inc. v. Altman, 372 So.2d 512 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).

Accordingly, the post-judgment order awarding an attorneys fee is reversed and the matter remanded to the trial court for a redetermination of that fee based on an application of Rowe.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

HARRIS and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

590 So. 2d 1104, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 12751, 1991 WL 273724, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ferran-engineering-group-inc-v-di-bar-electronics-inc-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack