Johnson v. Amritt

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Johnson v. Amritt

48 So. 3d 976, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 18321, 2010 WL 4861745

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 1, 2010

DocketNo. 3D10-170

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 48 So. 3d 976 (Johnson v. Amritt) 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

Johnson v. Amritt, 48 So. 3d 976, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 18321, 2010 WL 4861745 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We review the trial court’s order “approving and authorizing the payment of attorney’s fees” to the former emergency temporary guardian’s counsel. After a thorough review of the record, we hold that the trial court did not make the requisite findings for an award of attorney’s fees. See Fla. Patient’s Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145, 1151-52 (Fla.1985). “An order awarding attorneys’ fees is ‘fundamentally erroneous on its face’ when the trial court fails ‘to make specific findings as to the hourly rate, the number of hours reasonably expended, and the appropriateness of reduction or enhancement factors as required by [Rowe, 472 So.2d at 1151].” Parton v. Palomino Lakes Prop. Owners Ass’n, Inc., 928 So.2d 449, 453 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (quoting Baratta v. Valley Oak Homeowners’ Ass’n at the Vineyards, Inc., 891 So.2d 1063, 1065 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)). We reverse the order on appeal and remand with instructions for the trial court to make the requisite findings set forth in Rowe and its progeny and state the basis for awarding any such attorney’s fees.

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

We review the trial court’s order “approving and authorizing the payment of attorney’s fees” to the former emergency temporary guardian’s counsel. After a thorough review of the record, we hold that the trial court did not make the requisite findings for an award of attorney’s fees. See Fla. Patient’s Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145, 1151-52 (Fla.1985). “An order awarding attorneys’ fees is ‘fundamentally erroneous on its face’ when the trial court fails ‘to make specific findings as to the hourly rate, the number of hours reasonably expended, and the appropriateness of reduction or enhancement factors as required by [Rowe, 472 So.2d at 1151].” Parton v. Palomino Lakes Prop. Owners Ass’n, Inc., 928 So.2d 449, 453 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (quoting Baratta v. Valley Oak Homeowners’ Ass’n at the Vineyards, Inc., 891 So.2d 1063, 1065 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)). We reverse the order on appeal and remand with instructions for the trial court to make the requisite findings set forth in Rowe and its progeny and state the basis for awarding any such attorney’s fees.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 So. 3d 976, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 18321, 2010 WL 4861745, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-amritt-fladistctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack