Valdes v. Estate of Valdes

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Valdes v. Estate of Valdes

935 So. 2d 71, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 12870, 2006 WL 2136470

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 2, 2006

DocketNo. 3D04-2031

StatusPublished

This text of 935 So. 2d 71 (Valdes v. Estate of Valdes) 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

Valdes v. Estate of Valdes, 935 So. 2d 71, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 12870, 2006 WL 2136470 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

ON MOTION FOR REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

Valdes appeals an order granting her attorney’s fees and costs. We have jurisdiction. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.400(c) (permitting “review of orders rendered by the lower tribunal” for costs and attorney fees); See also Stabinski, Funt & De Oliveira, P.A. v. Alvarez, 490 So.2d 159, 160 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), review denied, 500 So.2d 545 (Fla.1986) (interpreting Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145 (Fla.1985), as applying “only to fees imposed ancillary to the pri[72]*72mary action against a non-client either under common law principles or ... pursuant to statutory authorization”) (citations omitted).

Because the trial court did not include specific findings for the amount awarded, we reverse. In an order granting attorneys’ fees, the trial court must set forth its specific findings as to “the hourly rate” and “the number of hours reasonably expended.” Rowe, 472 So.2d at 1151. We therefore reverse.

Reversed.

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

ON MOTION FOR REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

Valdes appeals an order granting her attorney’s fees and costs. We have jurisdiction. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.400(c) (permitting “review of orders rendered by the lower tribunal” for costs and attorney fees); See also Stabinski, Funt & De Oliveira, P.A. v. Alvarez, 490 So.2d 159, 160 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), review denied, 500 So.2d 545 (Fla.1986) (interpreting Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145 (Fla.1985), as applying “only to fees imposed ancillary to the pri[72]*72mary action against a non-client either under common law principles or ... pursuant to statutory authorization”) (citations omitted).

Because the trial court did not include specific findings for the amount awarded, we reverse. In an order granting attorneys’ fees, the trial court must set forth its specific findings as to “the hourly rate” and “the number of hours reasonably expended.” Rowe, 472 So.2d at 1151. We therefore reverse.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

935 So. 2d 71, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 12870, 2006 WL 2136470, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/valdes-v-estate-of-valdes-fladistctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack