Moyle v. PARKLAND CONDOMINIUM ASS'N, INC.

898 So. 2d 259, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 3523, 2005 WL 597344
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMarch 16, 2005
Docket2D04-2107
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 898 So. 2d 259 (Moyle v. PARKLAND CONDOMINIUM ASS'N, 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
Moyle v. PARKLAND CONDOMINIUM ASS'N, INC., 898 So. 2d 259, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 3523, 2005 WL 597344 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Opinion

898 So.2d 259 (2005)

Janet Lee MOYLE, Appellant,
v.
The PARKLAND CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellee.

No. 2D04-2107.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 16, 2005.
Rehearing Denied April 8, 2005.

J. Stanford Lifsey of J. Stanford Lifsey, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.

Shawn G. Brown of Nicholas F. Lang, P.A., St. Petersburg, for Appellee.

VILLANTI, Judge.

Janet Moyle appeals the trial court's "Order for Delinquent Assessments, Interest, Attorney's Fees and Costs." She raises two issues — the trial court's jurisdiction and the attorney's fee award. As to the first issue, we affirm without comment. As to the second issue, we reverse the trial court's order because it fails to set forth specific findings as to the hourly rate for attorney's fees, the number of hours reasonably expended, and the appropriateness of reduction or enhancement factors as required by Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145 (Fla.1985). See Guardianship of Halpert v. Martin S. Rosenbloom, P.A., 698 So.2d 938 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (noting that Rowe findings are mandatory). The trial court found that The Parkland Condominium Association, Inc., was entitled to recover attorney's fees, costs, interest, and surplus funds from a foreclosure sale that had been disbursed to Moyle in the amount of $9,744.13. However, the trial court did not specify exactly how much of the award was for attorney's fees, nor did it make the required Rowe findings. Therefore, the order is fundamentally erroneous on its face. See Baratta v. Valley Oak Homeowners' Ass'n at the Vineyards, Inc., 891 So.2d 1063 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). We reverse the amount of fees awarded and remand with directions that the trial court make the findings required by Rowe to support an award of fees.

*260 Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

DAVIS and SILBERMAN, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Harris v. McKinney
20 So. 3d 400 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
898 So. 2d 259, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 3523, 2005 WL 597344, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moyle-v-parkland-condominium-assn-inc-fladistctapp-2005.