PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION
v.
ERIC V. SCHREIBER A/K/A ERIC SHREIBER AND KATHY SCHREIBER
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.
PHH Mortgage Corporation appealed a final judgment awarding attorney's fees with a contingency fee multiplier to the Schreibers in a foreclosure case. The Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the trial court failed to present competent substantial evidence supporting the multiplier under the three-factor test established by Florida law.
The court held that a contingency fee multiplier should not be awarded without evidence that the relevant market requires a multiplier to obtain competent counsel. The trial court's judgment awarding the multiplier was reversed and remanded because the evidence addressed only the prevalence of contingency fees in foreclosure cases, not whether competent counsel could be obtained without a multiplier.
[1] A contingency fee multiplier may be awarded in contract cases only if there is evidence that such an arrangement was necessary to obtain competent counsel.
[2] In determining whether a contingency fee multiplier is necessary, courts must consider whether the relevant market requires such a multiplier to obtain competent counsel.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Evidence of these factors must be presented to justify the utilization of a multiplier.”
Establishes that affirmative evidence on the three Quanstrom factors is required before awarding a contingency fee multiplier.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a foreclosure case, the trial court awarded the Schreibers attorney's fees including a contingency fee multiplier. The Schreibers' expert testified…
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 Results Obtained cases and more on FLexlaw
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________
Case No. 5D2023-1917 LT Case No. 2019-CA-000868-A
_____________________________
PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION,
Appellant,
v.
ERIC V. SCHREIBER A/K/A ERIC SCHREIBER AND KATHY SCHREIBER,
Appellees.
_____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Citrus County. Carol A. Falvey, Judge.
Rosannie T. Morgan, of Burr & Forman, LLP, Tampa, for Appellant.
David La Croix, McAlpin, for Appellees.
November 27, 2024
EISNAUGLE, J.
Appellant, PHH Mortgage Corporation, appeals a final judgment awarding Appellees, Eric and Kathy Schreiber, attorney’s fees with a contingency fee multiplier in this foreclosure case. On appeal, Appellant argues that there was no competent substantial evidence to support the multiplier. We agree.
Our Florida Supreme Court has identified three factors to determine whether a multiplier is necessary in a tort or contract case. Those factors are:
(1) whether the relevant market requires a contingency fee multiplier to obtain competent counsel; (2) whether the attorney was able to mitigate the risk of nonpayment in any way; and (3) whether any of the factors set forth in Rowe are applicable, especially, the amount involved, the results obtained, and the type of fee arrangement between the attorney and his client.
Standard Guar. Ins. Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So. 2d 828, 834 (Fla. 1990). “Evidence of these factors must be presented to justify the utilization of a multiplier.” Id.; see also SafePoint Ins. Co. v. Castellanos, 49 Fla. L. Weekly D1364a (Fla. 3d DCA June 26, 2024) (“If there is no evidence that the relevant market required a contingency fee multiplier to obtain competent counsel, then a multiplier should not be awarded.” (citation omitted)); Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co., as Tr. for Morgan Stanley Home Equity Loan Tr. 2007-1 v. Pereira, 352 So. 3d 3, 4 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022) (applying the Quanstrom factors in a foreclosure case).
The evidence below did not address the first factor—whether the relevant market requires a contingency fee multiplier. Specifically, Appellees’ expert testified that “almost all [foreclosure] clients, because they couldn’t pay their mortgage, they can’t pay their attorney or . . . they pay very little as compared to the amount of work involved.” The expert further opined that, given the client’s inability to pay, most foreclosures involve some type of contingency fee.
While this testimony addresses the type of fee most common in foreclosure cases and the reason therefore, it says nothing about
1 Fla. Patient’s Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985).
whether a foreclosure client can obtain competent counsel without a multiplier. The final judgment awarding fees is therefore reversed and remanded for the trial court to enter an amended judgment without the contingency multiplier. See Francis v. Akerley, 884 So. 2d 455, 456 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
HARRIS and MACIVER, JJ., concur.
_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
_____________________________
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Patient's Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985)
- Standard Guar. Ins. Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 1990)
- Francis v. Akerley, 884 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)