terry's takes
Filtered by category: attorneys feesApril 1, 2024
3rd dca, attorneys feesStok + Kon, P.A. v. Miami Dade College
The Third DCA affirmed a trial court’s order awarding statutory fees and costs to Miami-Dade College even though the college failed to plead entitlement to fees. The failure to plead was excused by the exception to the pleading requirement established in Stockman v. Downs, 573 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 1991), which held that if a party fails to plead entitlement to fees but raises the issue in another way and the opposing party doesn’t object, the court can award fees.
read moreMarch 13, 2024
3rd dca, attorneys fees, settlementOrtega v. All Dade Fences Inc.
A driver who rear-ends another driver is presumed negligent and can only rebut the presumption by showing that the front driver made a sudden and unexpected stop. Absent such evidence, summary judgment was appropriate. Attorney fees were improperly denied because a proposal for settlement is not ambiguous or invalid for failing to state that a judgment would be entered in the amounts offered and/or provide a timeframe for payment.
read moreMarch 11, 2024
1st dca, attorneys fees, discovery, privilege attorney client, writ of certiorariPitts v. Neptune
The First DCA applied Worley v. Cent. Fla. Young Men's Christian Ass'n, Inc., 228 So. 3d 18 (Fla. 2017), which held that a lawyer’s referral of a client to a treating physician and the financial relationship between a non-party law firm and a plaintiff’s treating physician, is not discoverable. The DCA held that Worley did not bar a trial court from ordering discovery of the total amount of money paid by Plaintiffs attorney to “hybrid treating physician” expert witnesses, treating physicians who planned to testify about medical records of other physicians and who were provided with “litigation binders” to prepare for trial. Essentially, testifying beyond their own treatment of the patient cost them their status as treating physicians and opened the door to financial discovery. Judge Tanenbaum’s concurrence opined that discovery orders based on court rules (such as “overbroadness” objections) rather than constitutional or statutory rights can never qualify for certiorari relief. He opined that the attorney-client and privacy arguments were not proper because the appendix to the cert petition did not show objections or privilege logs asserting those type of objections. He also opined (dissenting from the majority’s provisional grant of fees to Respondents) that trial courts, not appellate courts, are the courts with jurisdiction to award or deny fees from an original writ proceeding, which he does not view as appellate fees.
read moreMarch 6, 2024
general, attorneys feesPalmer v. Felicetti L. Firm, PLLC
In a recent ruling, the Fourth DCA clarified that discharged attorneys hired under a contingency fee agreement can recover fees based on quantum meruit, but only up to the maximum allowed under their original fee agreement. In this personal injury case, the client’s former counsel, discharged before the case concluded, was limited to a fee of $80,000, reflecting 40% of a $200,000 settlement offer made prior to discharge, instead of the $110,000 initially awarded. The decision underscores the importance of fee limits in contingency agreements. The case was reversed in part and remanded.
read moreJune 23, 2023
2nd dca, attorneys fees, inequitable conduct doctrine, sanctionsGoznar v. Goknar
a brother and two sisters were involved in litigation over a family trust. an arbitration order instructed all parties to return $100,000 each to the trust, but the brother did not comply. the sisters filed a motion for contempt.
read moreJune 15, 2023
supreme court of florida, attorneys fees, offer of judgmentCoates v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company
The Supreme Court of Florida ruled that the offer-of-judgment statute (section 768.79, Fla. Stat.) is not a prevailing-party statute. In Coates' wrongful death suit, she served RJR with two settlement offers that were rejected, and later won substantial compensatory and punitive damages. Although RJR succeeded in reducing the punitive damages on appeal, the Court held that Coates could still recover appellate attorney’s fees if her overall judgment meets statutory requirements. The Court emphasized that while appellate success impacts fee reasonableness, it does not solely determine entitlement to fees.
read moreContact Us
Our Promise
Aggressive Litigation. Honest Representation. Dedicated Communication. Respect and Compassion.
