Jack Brier General Contractor, Inc. v. Skinner

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Jack Brier General Contractor, Inc. v. Skinner

891 So. 2d 1194, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 952, 2005 WL 235971

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 2, 2005

DocketNo. 3D03-2742

StatusPublished

This text of 891 So. 2d 1194 (Jack Brier General Contractor, Inc. v. Skinner) 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

Jack Brier General Contractor, Inc. v. Skinner, 891 So. 2d 1194, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 952, 2005 WL 235971 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Jack Brier General Contractor, Inc., the successful plaintiff below, appeals an order of the circuit court awarding it attorneys’ fees pursuant to section 713.29, Fla. Stat. The final award ($20,162 .50 in fees and $376.00 in costs) was significantly lower than the amount the appellant requested (approximately $48,000.00 in fees and $4,775.81 in costs) even though there was evidentiary support for the full amount requested. The trial court nevertheless concluded in its order, which included detailed findings, that the reasonable number of hours necessary to prosecute this breach of contract action was considerably less than the amount actually billed.¹ We cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion. See Baldwin Piano & Organ Co. v. Dote, 740 So.2d 1230, 1231 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (“the trial court was not bound by the testimony of the expert as to the amount of a reasonable attorney’s fee, even though there was no opposing expert”); Ruwitch v. First Nat’l Bank of Miami, 327 So.2d 833, 833 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976) (“while the opinion of an expert witness testifying on attorneys fees is persuasive, it is not binding on the court in determination of a reasonable fee”). Accordingly, the fee award below is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Jack Brier General Contractor, Inc., the successful plaintiff below, appeals an order of the circuit court awarding it attorneys’ fees pursuant to section 713.29, Fla. Stat. The final award ($20,162 .50 in fees and $376.00 in costs) was significantly lower than the amount the appellant requested (approximately $48,000.00 in fees and $4,775.81 in costs) even though there was evidentiary support for the full amount requested. The trial court nevertheless concluded in its order, which included detailed findings, that the reasonable number of hours necessary to prosecute this breach of contract action was considerably less than the amount actually billed.¹ We cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion. See Baldwin Piano & Organ Co. v. Dote, 740 So.2d 1230, 1231 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (“the trial court was not bound by the testimony of the expert as to the amount of a reasonable attorney’s fee, even though there was no opposing expert”); Ruwitch v. First Nat’l Bank of Miami, 327 So.2d 833, 833 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976) (“while the opinion of an expert witness testifying on attorneys fees is persuasive, it is not binding on the court in determination of a reasonable fee”). Accordingly, the fee award below is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

891 So. 2d 1194, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 952, 2005 WL 235971, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jack-brier-general-contractor-inc-v-skinner-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack