Mendelson v. Oceania Club, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mendelson v. Oceania Club, Inc.

766 So. 2d 1079, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 8294, 2000 WL 873286

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 5, 2000

DocketNo. 3D99-3150

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 766 So. 2d 1079 (Mendelson v. Oceania Club, Inc.) 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

Mendelson v. Oceania Club, Inc., 766 So. 2d 1079, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 8294, 2000 WL 873286 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We find no merit in the substantive issues raised by Appellants. We do, however, agree with their position that the attorneys’ fee award in this case is unreasonable.

The amount in controversy in this case, including interest, was $6,927.39. The attorneys’ fee awarded was $6,216.48. In light of the fact that this foreclosure action was, for all practical purposes, unopposed, this award was excessive. At oral argument, counsel for Oceania Club, Inc. ad[1080]*1080mitted that the substitution of counsel in the case may have resulted in duplicative billing. Accordingly, we reverse the award of attorneys’ fees and remand with directions to conduct a new hearing during which the trial court will specifically consider this issue.

Reversed.

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

PER CURIAM.

We find no merit in the substantive issues raised by Appellants. We do, however, agree with their position that the attorneys’ fee award in this case is unreasonable.

The amount in controversy in this case, including interest, was $6,927.39. The attorneys’ fee awarded was $6,216.48. In light of the fact that this foreclosure action was, for all practical purposes, unopposed, this award was excessive. At oral argument, counsel for Oceania Club, Inc. ad[1080]*1080mitted that the substitution of counsel in the case may have resulted in duplicative billing. Accordingly, we reverse the award of attorneys’ fees and remand with directions to conduct a new hearing during which the trial court will specifically consider this issue.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

766 So. 2d 1079, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 8294, 2000 WL 873286, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mendelson-v-oceania-club-inc-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack