MCO Investors, Inc. v. Dansby

District Court of Appeal of Florida

MCO Investors, Inc. v. Dansby

545 So. 2d 442, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1450, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3445, 1989 WL 65654

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 16, 1989

DocketNo. 88-2055

StatusPublished

This text of 545 So. 2d 442 (MCO Investors, Inc. v. Dansby) 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

MCO Investors, Inc. v. Dansby, 545 So. 2d 442, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1450, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3445, 1989 WL 65654 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the summary final judgment of foreclosure finding that the interest rate applied in this case was not usurious. Hool v. Rydholm, 467 So.2d 1038 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). While we agree with appellant’s contention that testimony of an expert witness concerning a reasonable attorney’s fee is generally necessary to support the establishment of the fee, Crittenden Orange Blossom Fruit v. Stone, 514 So.2d 351, 352-3 (Fla.1987), no transcript of the hearing for summary judgment was made, and we find a lack of agreement by the parties concerning the alleged absence of evidence adduced at the hearing or other basis for support of the court’s order awarding fees. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150 (Fla.1979); and Glace & Radcliffe, Inc. v. City of Live Oak, 471 So.2d 144 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). Accordingly, appellant has failed to demonstrate that the trial court committed [443]*443reversible error in awarding the attorney’s fee.

AFFIRMED.

SMITH, C.J., and THOMPSON and MINER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the summary final judgment of foreclosure finding that the interest rate applied in this case was not usurious. Hool v. Rydholm, 467 So.2d 1038 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). While we agree with appellant’s contention that testimony of an expert witness concerning a reasonable attorney’s fee is generally necessary to support the establishment of the fee, Crittenden Orange Blossom Fruit v. Stone, 514 So.2d 351, 352-3 (Fla.1987), no transcript of the hearing for summary judgment was made, and we find a lack of agreement by the parties concerning the alleged absence of evidence adduced at the hearing or other basis for support of the court’s order awarding fees. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150 (Fla.1979); and Glace & Radcliffe, Inc. v. City of Live Oak, 471 So.2d 144 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). Accordingly, appellant has failed to demonstrate that the trial court committed [443]*443reversible error in awarding the attorney’s fee.

AFFIRMED.

SMITH, C.J., and THOMPSON and MINER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

545 So. 2d 442, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1450, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3445, 1989 WL 65654, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mco-investors-inc-v-dansby-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack