Worobec v. Morse

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Worobec v. Morse

722 So. 2d 227, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 14068, 23 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 2468

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 6, 1998

DocketNo. 97-2987

StatusPublished

This text of 722 So. 2d 227 (Worobec v. Morse) 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

Worobec v. Morse, 722 So. 2d 227, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 14068, 23 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 2468 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

WHITEHEAD, R., Associate Judge.

Robert Worobec appeals a final judgment awarding appellee Frances Morse attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to section 768.79(1), Florida Statutes (1991), the offer of judgment statute. We find that the trial court properly awarded fees under the statute, but erred in using a contingency risk multiplier of 1.5 to calculate a reasonable fee.

Worobec sued Morse to collect on two promissory notes. The attorney representing Morse in this ease also was representing her in a partition suit she filed against Woro-bee. Their fee arrangement provided that any money the attorney recovered in the partition case would be used to pay him for all hours expended in both cases. Morse would receive the balance, if any, but would pay nothing if the attorney failed to recover any money in the partition suit. The latter suit was pending when Morse obtained a judgment in her favor and was awarded fees in the promissory note action. The trial court found the 135.7 hours expended by Morse’s attorney at $150 per hour to be reasonable. The court then increased the resulting fee of $20,355 to $30,532.50 using a contingency risk multiplier of 1.5. See Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, [228]*228472 So.2d 1145 (Fla.1985), modified by Standard Guar. Ins. Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So.2d 828 (Fla.1990).

We do not find that the arrangement between Morse and her attorney created a contingency fee agreement in this case. Payment of the fee did not depend on Morse prevailing in the promissory note action, but on her prevailing in the partition suit. Thus, the fee for this case was not contingent upon the outcome of this ease. See R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-1.5(f). As such, use of a contingency risk multiplier to calculate a reasonable fee was error. We therefore modify the judgment to reflect a reasonable fee of $20,-355. See Warren v. Department of Admin., 590 So.2d 514 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991).

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

DAUKSCH and HARRIS, JJ., concur.

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

WHITEHEAD, R., Associate Judge.

Robert Worobec appeals a final judgment awarding appellee Frances Morse attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to section 768.79(1), Florida Statutes (1991), the offer of judgment statute. We find that the trial court properly awarded fees under the statute, but erred in using a contingency risk multiplier of 1.5 to calculate a reasonable fee.

Worobec sued Morse to collect on two promissory notes. The attorney representing Morse in this ease also was representing her in a partition suit she filed against Woro-bee. Their fee arrangement provided that any money the attorney recovered in the partition case would be used to pay him for all hours expended in both cases. Morse would receive the balance, if any, but would pay nothing if the attorney failed to recover any money in the partition suit. The latter suit was pending when Morse obtained a judgment in her favor and was awarded fees in the promissory note action. The trial court found the 135.7 hours expended by Morse’s attorney at $150 per hour to be reasonable. The court then increased the resulting fee of $20,355 to $30,532.50 using a contingency risk multiplier of 1.5. See Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, [228]*228472 So.2d 1145 (Fla.1985), modified by Standard Guar. Ins. Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So.2d 828 (Fla.1990).

We do not find that the arrangement between Morse and her attorney created a contingency fee agreement in this case. Payment of the fee did not depend on Morse prevailing in the promissory note action, but on her prevailing in the partition suit. Thus, the fee for this case was not contingent upon the outcome of this ease. See R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-1.5(f). As such, use of a contingency risk multiplier to calculate a reasonable fee was error. We therefore modify the judgment to reflect a reasonable fee of $20,-355. See Warren v. Department of Admin., 590 So.2d 514 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991).

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

DAUKSCH and HARRIS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

722 So. 2d 227, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 14068, 23 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 2468, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/worobec-v-morse-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack