Hysmith v. Hysmith-Graham

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hysmith v. Hysmith-Graham

948 So. 2d 974, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 2308, 2007 WL 505261

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 20, 2007

DocketNo. 1D06-1210

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 948 So. 2d 974 (Hysmith v. Hysmith-Graham) 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

Hysmith v. Hysmith-Graham, 948 So. 2d 974, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 2308, 2007 WL 505261 (Fla. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges an order by which attorney’s fees were awarded, arguing that the trial court erred by reducing the amount requested. Although a reduction in attorney’s fees might ultimately be appropriate in this case, we must reverse the present order because the trial court failed to set forth specific findings regarding the attorney’s hourly rate, the number of hours reasonably expended, and the appropriateness of reduction or enhancement factors. See Fla. Patient’s Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145 (Fla.1985). Accord Messana v. Seaside Cmty. Dev. Corp., 908 So.2d 551 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); T.G.G. v. P.M.L., 661 So.2d 351 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Jones v. Assocs. Fin. Inc., 565 So.2d 394 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). The order under review is accordingly REVERSED and this case is REMANDED.

ALLEN, PADOVANO, and LEWIS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges an order by which attorney’s fees were awarded, arguing that the trial court erred by reducing the amount requested. Although a reduction in attorney’s fees might ultimately be appropriate in this case, we must reverse the present order because the trial court failed to set forth specific findings regarding the attorney’s hourly rate, the number of hours reasonably expended, and the appropriateness of reduction or enhancement factors. See Fla. Patient’s Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145 (Fla.1985). Accord Messana v. Seaside Cmty. Dev. Corp., 908 So.2d 551 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); T.G.G. v. P.M.L., 661 So.2d 351 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Jones v. Assocs. Fin. Inc., 565 So.2d 394 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). The order under review is accordingly REVERSED and this case is REMANDED.

ALLEN, PADOVANO, and LEWIS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

948 So. 2d 974, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 2308, 2007 WL 505261, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hysmith-v-hysmith-graham-fladistctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack