Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

485 So. 2d 879

485 So.2d 879

11 Fla.L.Weekly 749

Docket No. 85-1757.

Boyle v. Boyle

Clara M. BOYLE, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. James W. BOYLE, Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided March 26, 1986.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1986-03-26

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“[I]n computing an attorney fee, the trial judge should (1) determine the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation; (2) determine the reasonable hourly rate for this type of litigation; (3) multiply the result of (1) and (2); and, when appropriate, (4) adjust the fee on the basis of the contingent nature of the litigation or the failure to prevail on a claim or claims. Application of the Disciplinary Rule 2-106 criteria in this manner will provide trial judges with objective guidance in the awarding of reasonable attorney fees and allow parties an opportunity for meaningful appellate review.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 528 So. 2d 80 - Lanham v. Lanham

“[a]lthough... the record contain[ed] sufficient, competent evidence upon which the trial judge could have based its award according to the criteria as set forth in Rowe , neither the record nor the order set[ ] forth any specific findings as required by Rowe . " The opinion, however, did not explain why Rowe requirements are different from other statutorily imposed requirements or how the appellant demonstrated a "miscarriage of justice”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Harris v. McKinney

Relies on 472 So. 2d 1145 - Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Rowe

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1986-03-26

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently October 2009

24 state decisions

200198619902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Laurie Gordon-Hardy, of Wallace & Hardy, Lakeland, for appellant/cross-appellee.

¶2Robert L. Valentine, of Jacobs & Valentine, P.A., Lakeland, for appellee/cross-appellant.

¶3HALL, Judge.

¶4In this dissolution action, the trial court awarded attorney's fees to the appellee, husband. Appellant contends that the trial court erred when it failed to set forth its finding as to the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation by appellee's counsel and as to what a reasonable hourly rate would be for this type of litigation. We agree.

¶5Our supreme court in Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Rowe,472 So.2d 1145 (Fla. 1985), not only set forth the criteria that must be used by a trial court in determining the proper amount of attorney's fees, but also mandated that the trial judge set forth specific findings as to the hourly rate, the number of hours reasonably expended, and the appropriateness of the reduction or enhancement factors.

¶6Although we find that the record contains sufficient, competent evidence upon which the trial judge could have based its award according to the criteria as set forth in Rowe, neither the record nor the order sets forth any specific findings as required by Rowe.

¶7*880 We find no merit to the other points raised on appeal but must reverse and remand for a new hearing on attorney's fees, wherein the trial judge must set forth his findings as required by Rowe.

¶8GRIMES, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER, J., concur.

/485/so2d/879 · .json · Public domain