Johnson v. Amritt

48 So. 3d 976, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 18321, 2010 WL 4861745
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 1, 2010·No. No. 3D10-170·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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

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

48 So. 3d 976 (Johnson v. Amritt) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lee v. Gomez
62 So. 3d 1279 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2011)