Sun Bank of Ocala v. Ford

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sun Bank of Ocala v. Ford

553 So. 2d 368, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2820, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 6841, 1989 WL 147387

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 7, 1989

DocketNo. 89-507

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 553 So. 2d 368 (Sun Bank of Ocala v. Ford) 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

Sun Bank of Ocala v. Ford, 553 So. 2d 368, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2820, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 6841, 1989 WL 147387 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

DAUKSCH, Judge.

This is an appeal from an award of attorneys fees.

The issue in this case is the same as that in Head v. Lane, 541 So.2d 672 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). That is, can an attorney and his client enter into a partial contingent fee agreement and then have the court assess a “contingency risk factor” against their losing adversary. See Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145 (Fla.1985).

We agree with the holding and rationale of Head and certify conflict with First State Insurance Co. v. General Electric Credit Auto Lease, Inc., 518 So.2d 927 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).

[369]*369The order denying an enhancement of attorneys fees is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

SHARP, J., and MILLER, J.D., Associate Judge, concur.

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