Wash v. Ferdinand

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Wash v. Ferdinand

206 So. 3d 810, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 17895

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 2, 2016·No. Case No. 5D16-612·Published

Opinion

EDWARDS, J.

After careful consideration, we affirm the trial court’s rulings on all but one issue raised on appeal. Because the trial court erred by failing to apportion the award of attorney’s fees between John Wash (“Appellant”) and his counsel, we remand the case to the trial court for entry of an amended order apportioning the fees between Appellant and his counsel as required by section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2014).

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED.

SAWAYA and BERGER, JJ., concur.

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

EDWARDS, J.

After careful consideration, we affirm the trial court’s rulings on all but one issue raised on appeal. Because the trial court erred by failing to apportion the award of attorney’s fees between John Wash (“Appellant”) and his counsel, we remand the case to the trial court for entry of an amended order apportioning the fees between Appellant and his counsel as required by section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2014).

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED.

SAWAYA and BERGER, JJ., concur.

Wash v. Ferdinand, 206 So. 3d 810, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 17895 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

206 So. 3d 810 (Wash v. Ferdinand) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.