New White Linen, Inc. v. Commercial Laundry Equipment Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

New White Linen, Inc. v. Commercial Laundry Equipment Co.

21 So. 3d 855, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 14924, 2009 WL 3189489

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 7, 2009

Docket4D09-1144

StatusPublished

This text of 21 So. 3d 855 (New White Linen, Inc. v. Commercial Laundry Equipment Co.) 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

New White Linen, Inc. v. Commercial Laundry Equipment Co., 21 So. 3d 855, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 14924, 2009 WL 3189489 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

DAMOORGIAN, J.

New White Linen, Inc. timely appeals the trial court’s order granting Commercial Laundry Equipment Company, Inc.’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees, arguing, among other things, that the trial court committed reversible error when it failed to set forth specific findings in the order regarding the time reasonably expended, *856 the hourly rate, and other factors it may have considered. We agree that failing to include such findings was error. See Fla. Patient’s Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145, 1152 (Fla.1985); Guardianship of Halpert v. Rosenbloom, 698 So.2d 938, 939 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Because we do not have a transcript of the proceedings on appeal, we are unable to deem this error harmless as we did in Blits v. Renaissance Cruises, Inc., 647 So.2d 971, 972 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), and must, although reluctantly, reverse and remand for the trial court to make such findings in the order. See Rosenbloom, 698 So.2d at 939. If there is no hearing transcript or the trial court cannot recall what occurred at the hearing, we direct the court to conduct a new evi-dentiary hearing. See id. at 940. We find no merit to the other issues raised on appeal.

Affirmed in part, Reversed in part, and Remanded.

MAY and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.

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

DAMOORGIAN, J.

New White Linen, Inc. timely appeals the trial court’s order granting Commercial Laundry Equipment Company, Inc.’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees, arguing, among other things, that the trial court committed reversible error when it failed to set forth specific findings in the order regarding the time reasonably expended, *856 the hourly rate, and other factors it may have considered. We agree that failing to include such findings was error. See Fla. Patient’s Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145, 1152 (Fla.1985); Guardianship of Halpert v. Rosenbloom, 698 So.2d 938, 939 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Because we do not have a transcript of the proceedings on appeal, we are unable to deem this error harmless as we did in Blits v. Renaissance Cruises, Inc., 647 So.2d 971, 972 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), and must, although reluctantly, reverse and remand for the trial court to make such findings in the order. See Rosenbloom, 698 So.2d at 939. If there is no hearing transcript or the trial court cannot recall what occurred at the hearing, we direct the court to conduct a new evi-dentiary hearing. See id. at 940. We find no merit to the other issues raised on appeal.

Affirmed in part, Reversed in part, and Remanded.

MAY and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 So. 3d 855, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 14924, 2009 WL 3189489, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/new-white-linen-inc-v-commercial-laundry-equipment-co-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack