CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION
v.
HAYDEE BUERGO, ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Citizens Property Insurance Corporation appealed the trial court's award of attorney's fees in a bench trial. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding fees and applying a fee multiplier, as competent substantial evidence supported the findings.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion. The detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law were supported by competent substantial evidence, and the application of the fee multiplier was also supported by expert testimony in the record. An appellate court must affirm a trial court's discretionary decision if reasonable people could differ regarding its propriety.
[1] An award of attorney's fees is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.
[2] A trial judge's findings of fact in a non-jury trial are presumed correct on appeal and will not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“When a cause is tried without a jury, the trial judge's findings of fact are clothed with a presumption of correctness on appeal, and these findings will not be disturbed unless the appellant can demonstrate that they are clearly erroneous.”
Establishes the deferential standard of review for bench trial findings and the burden on the appellant
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involved a dispute over attorney's fees. The trial court conducted a bench trial (trial without a jury) and issued a detailed order listing t…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Competent Substantial Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Sunshine State Ins. Co. v. Davide, 117 So. 3d 1142, 1144-45 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (“We review the trial court's award [of attorney's fees] under an abuse of discretion standard. When a cause is tried without a jury, the trial judge's findings of fact are clothed with a presumption of correctness on appeal, and these findings will not be disturbed unless the appellant can demonstrate that they are clearly erroneous. In this case, the trial court issued a very detailed order specifically listing the facts upon which it relied as well as detailed conclusions of law to support the award. . . . It is not within our purview, nor is it part of our standard of review, for this court to re-weigh the credibility of the witnesses or to evaluate the facts de novo. Those are issues for the trial court. Our review of the record shows that there is competent substantial evidence to support the trial court's findings, and we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it made its findings of fact and conclusions of law. . . . Sunshine [] disputes the multiplier applied to the fees claim in this action. We can understand Sunshine's position but, once again, there is evidence in the record presented by the experts to support the trial court's conclusion. No abuse regarding application of a multiplier has been shown on this record. As with other discretionary decisions, we must affirm the order of the trial court if reasonable people could differ as to the propriety of the action taken.”).