MAX R. WHITNEY, APPELLANT,
v.
MICHAEL HILL, M.D., APPELLEE

Fla. 5th DCA | 2009-01-23
No. 5D07-3825
PALMER, C.J. and SAWAYA, J., concur.
1 So. 3d 1157 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (2009) Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case

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.


Holding

The court affirmed the striking of pleadings and default judgment but reversed the attorney's fees award due to insufficient findings.


Facts & Procedural History

Defendant in a legal malpractice action appealed a default judgment entered for discovery violations and an attorney's fees award.…

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.


Opinion of the Court
ORFINGER, J.

ORFINGER, J.

In this legal malpractice action, Max R. Whitney, the defendant below, appeals the trial court’s final judgment entered after the court struck his pleadings and entered a default against him as a consequence of various discovery violations. On the limited record before us, we find no abuse of discretion and affirm the trial court’s order striking Whitney’s defenses and entering a default judgment against him.

Whitney also appeals the trial court’s order assessing attorney’s fees against him. We agree that the order is defective as the trial court failed to make findings of fact in the judgment regarding the number of hours spent by Hill’s counsel and a reasonable hourly rate as required by Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145 (Fla.1985), modified, Standard Guaranty Insurance Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So.2d 828 (Fla.1990). Because the court made no findings as to the number of hours reasonably expended or an hourly rate, reversal is required. Simpson v. Simpson, 780 So.2d 985, 988 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).

Finally, we note that the attorney’s fee award appears to cover all fees incurred by Hill during the course of the litigation. As Whitney correctly argues, that is error as the amount of attorney’s fees awarded should only be for that time reasonably occasioned by Whitney’s misconduct and not for the entire litigation. Id. at 989.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

PALMER, C.J. and SAWAYA, J., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • THE Florida BAR v. Whitney, 132 So. 3d 1095 (Fla. 2013)
    …which Respondent has remitted to Dr. Hill through Ms. Jackson. Respondent appealed to the Fifth District Court of Appeal, which upheld the final judgment but remanded for a determination of the correct amount of attorney’s fees. See Whitney v. Hill, 1 So. 3d 1157 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009). A Second Amended Final Judgment was entered on June 15, 2011. Respondent has not paid any of the additional $24,246 in attorney’s fees, expert fees, and taxable costs awarded to Dr. Hill. The referee recommended that Respondent…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw