Goodfriend v. Druck

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Goodfriend v. Druck

309 So. 2d 236, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 14381

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 14, 1975

DocketNo. 74-1454

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 309 So. 2d 236 (Goodfriend v. Druck) 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

Goodfriend v. Druck, 309 So. 2d 236, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 14381 (Fla. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the briefs and record we are of the opinion that the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees for services in the appellate court (including the Supreme Court) was contrary to Rule 3.16(e), F.A.R.; said rule sets forth the manner in which attorney’s fees may be sought for service in the appellate court and particularly the requirement for the determination as to the allowance of such fee to be made by the appellate court. The record does not demonstrate that this procedure was followed.

In addition and perhaps of greater significance in the disposition of this appeal is the fact that under the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Ohio Rlty. Inv. Corp. v. Southern Bk of West Palm Beach, Fla. 1974, 300 So.2d 679, attorney’s fees on appeal are not allowable unless there is express language to that effect in the contractual document executed by the parties. The instant case involves a promissory note which contained no provision for attorney’s fees on appeal.

Accordingly, the final judgment is reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court with respectful directions to modify said judgment deleting the allowance of attorney’s fees for services in the appellate courts in conformance herewith.

Reversed and remanded.

CROSS, MAGER, and DOWNEY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the briefs and record we are of the opinion that the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees for services in the appellate court (including the Supreme Court) was contrary to Rule 3.16(e), F.A.R.; said rule sets forth the manner in which attorney’s fees may be sought for service in the appellate court and particularly the requirement for the determination as to the allowance of such fee to be made by the appellate court. The record does not demonstrate that this procedure was followed.

In addition and perhaps of greater significance in the disposition of this appeal is the fact that under the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Ohio Rlty. Inv. Corp. v. Southern Bk of West Palm Beach, Fla. 1974, 300 So.2d 679, attorney’s fees on appeal are not allowable unless there is express language to that effect in the contractual document executed by the parties. The instant case involves a promissory note which contained no provision for attorney’s fees on appeal.

Accordingly, the final judgment is reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court with respectful directions to modify said judgment deleting the allowance of attorney’s fees for services in the appellate courts in conformance herewith.

Reversed and remanded.

CROSS, MAGER, and DOWNEY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

309 So. 2d 236, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 14381, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goodfriend-v-druck-fladistctapp-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack