FERRAN ENGINEERING GROUP, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
DI-BAR ELECTRONICS, INC., ETC., ET AL., APPELLEES
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.
Trial court's attorney fee award based solely on a percentage of recovery was reversed because it failed to comply with the Rowe lodestar methodology requiring specific findings on hours expended and hourly rate.
A trial court must apply the lodestar methodology under Rowe, making specific findings regarding hours expended and hourly rate, rather than basing attorney fees solely on a percentage of the recovery.
[1] A trial court must apply the lodestar methodology requiring specific findings on hours expended and hourly rate when awarding attorney fees, and it is an abuse of discret…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFerran Engineering Group appealed an attorney's fee award where the trial court based its award solely on a percentage of the recovery without making …
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 Post-Judgment Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Judge.
Ferran Engineering Group, Inc. appeals an attorney’s fee award on the basis that the trial court did not make specific findings in regard to hours expended and hourly rate as required by Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla.1985). The trial court based its award solely on a percentage of the recovery.
This court has held that a trial court must follow Rowe, which requires “specific” findings. Travelers Indem. Co. v. Duffy’s Little Tavern, Inc., 541 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). In addition, even though a trial court has discretion to consider the amount recovered in conjunction with the amount claimed for an attorney’s fee, it is normally an abuse of discretion to abandon the lodestar methodology and limit that fee to a percentage of the amount recovered as damages. Beisswenger v. Omicron Construction & Development Co., Inc., 552 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Fashion Tile & Marble, Inc. v. Alpha One Const. & Associates, Inc., 532 So. 2d 1306, 1309 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Marchion Terrazzo, Inc. v. Altman, 372 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).
Accordingly, the post-judgment order awarding an attorneys fee is reversed and the matter remanded to the trial court for a redetermination of that fee based on an application of Rowe.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
HARRIS and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Patient's Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985)
- Marchion Terrazzo, Inc. v. Altman, 372 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Fashion Tile & Marble, Inc. v. Alpha ONE Constr. & Assocs., Inc., 532 So. 2d 1306 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Zawadski v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sch. Bd., 541 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- The Travelers Indem. Co. v. Duffy's Little Tavern, Inc., 541 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
- Margaretta C. Beisswenger and Loreen J. Beisswenger v. Omicron Constr. & Dev. Co., Inc., 552 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)