VENICE GRAHAM v. RANDOLPH CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

VENICE GRAHAM v. RANDOLPH CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC.

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 8, 2020

Docket18-3773

StatusPublished

This text of VENICE GRAHAM v. RANDOLPH CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC. (VENICE GRAHAM v. RANDOLPH CONSTRUCTION GROUP, 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

VENICE GRAHAM v. RANDOLPH CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC., (Fla. Ct. App. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

VENICE GRAHAM, Appellant,

v.

RANDOLPH CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 4D18-3773

[April 8, 2020]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Meenu Sasser, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502017CA013731XXXXMB AK.

Jeremy Dicker and Robin Bresky of the Law Offices of Robin Bresky, Boca Raton, for appellant.

Jose A. Rodriguez of The Soto Law Group, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the final judgment, concluding that it was supported by competent substantial evidence, or the issues raised on appeal were not properly preserved. As to appellant’s claim of fundamental error because the court showed bias in favor of the appellee during the trial, we note that this claim was never raised at trial nor in a motion for new trial. We do not deem it as fundamental error, as the trial court’s comments pointed out by appellant arose after the court had heard argument and reviewed the contracts involved in this case or observed witness testimony. A trial judge may form mental impressions and opinions during the course of hearing evidence in a case. Wargo v. Wargo, 669 So. 2d 1123, 1124 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).

The appellant also challenges the order granting attorney’s fees, contending that the trial court failed to make appropriate findings of the reasonable number of hours and hourly rate. To the contrary, we conclude that the court made sufficient findings to support the award. We reverse, however, the order on costs. The court did not itemize those recoverable costs pursuant to the Uniform Guidelines on Taxation of Costs. See Kirkland v. Thurmond, 519 So. 2d 717 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). It appears from our examination of the statement of costs, that many are not recoverable under the guidelines. The court may reconsider the costs on remand.

WARNER, KLINGENSMITH and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

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

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

VENICE GRAHAM, Appellant,

v.

RANDOLPH CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 4D18-3773

[April 8, 2020]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Meenu Sasser, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502017CA013731XXXXMB AK.

Jeremy Dicker and Robin Bresky of the Law Offices of Robin Bresky, Boca Raton, for appellant.

Jose A. Rodriguez of The Soto Law Group, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the final judgment, concluding that it was supported by competent substantial evidence, or the issues raised on appeal were not properly preserved. As to appellant’s claim of fundamental error because the court showed bias in favor of the appellee during the trial, we note that this claim was never raised at trial nor in a motion for new trial. We do not deem it as fundamental error, as the trial court’s comments pointed out by appellant arose after the court had heard argument and reviewed the contracts involved in this case or observed witness testimony. A trial judge may form mental impressions and opinions during the course of hearing evidence in a case. Wargo v. Wargo, 669 So. 2d 1123, 1124 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).

The appellant also challenges the order granting attorney’s fees, contending that the trial court failed to make appropriate findings of the reasonable number of hours and hourly rate. To the contrary, we conclude that the court made sufficient findings to support the award. We reverse, however, the order on costs. The court did not itemize those recoverable costs pursuant to the Uniform Guidelines on Taxation of Costs. See Kirkland v. Thurmond, 519 So. 2d 717 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). It appears from our examination of the statement of costs, that many are not recoverable under the guidelines. The court may reconsider the costs on remand.

WARNER, KLINGENSMITH and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

VENICE GRAHAM v. RANDOLPH CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/venice-graham-v-randolph-construction-group-inc-fladistctapp-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack