Hamilton v. Palm Chevrolet-Oldsmobile, Inc.

388 So. 2d 638
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedSeptember 26, 1980
Docket80-408
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 388 So. 2d 638 (Hamilton v. Palm Chevrolet-Oldsmobile, 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
Hamilton v. Palm Chevrolet-Oldsmobile, Inc., 388 So. 2d 638 (Fla. Ct. App. 1980).

Opinion

388 So.2d 638 (1980)

Eugene M. and Sylvia HAMILTON, Husband and Wife, Appellants,
v.
PALM CHEVROLET-OLDSMOBILE, INC., a Florida Corporation, and Berry Brannon, Appellees.

No. 80-408.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

September 26, 1980.

*639 Bruce D. Frankel of Goldberg, Rubinstein & Buckley, Fort Myers, for appellants.

Lester E. Durst of Farr, Farr, Haymans, Moseley & Emerich, Punta Gorda, for appellees.

SCHEB, Chief Judge.

Appellants sued appellees charging them with deceptive trade practices under Chapter 501, Part II, Florida Statutes (1977), the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. The jury returned a verdict for appellees. The trial court entered final judgment for appellees and awarded them $5,500 in attorney's fees.

Appellants now contend that the court improperly included services of appellees' attorneys in defending appellants' claim of punitive damages. Under Section 501.2105 of the Act, appellees, as prevailing parties, were entitled to have the court assess fees in their favor. Attorneys for appellees, however, submitted an itemization which included services beyond the scope of proceedings under Chapter 501, Part II. It appears that the trial court included payment for these services in awarding fees. In doing so, it erred. Kittel v. Kittel, 210 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1967).

Accordingly, we vacate the order awarding attorneys' fees, and direct the trial court to conduct a new hearing to determine a reasonable fee for appellees' attorneys based on their services in defense of appellants' claims under Chapter 501, Part II. Otherwise, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

GRIMES and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Trumbull Insurance Co. v. Wolentarski
2 So. 3d 1050 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2009)
Stires v. Carnival Corp.
243 F. Supp. 2d 1313 (M.D. Florida, 2002)
Plapinger v. Eastern States Properties Realty Corp.
716 So. 2d 315 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)
Gres v. Value Rent A Car, Inc.
35 Fla. Supp. 2d 123 (Florida County Courts, 1989)
Maserati Automobiles Inc. v. Caplan
522 So. 2d 993 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)
Heindel v. Southside Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc.
476 So. 2d 266 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1985)
LaFerney v. SCOTT SMITH OLDSMOBILE
410 So. 2d 534 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
388 So. 2d 638, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hamilton-v-palm-chevrolet-oldsmobile-inc-fladistctapp-1980.