Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

529 So. 2d 824

Docket No. 88-426.

Brea v. Perez-Borroto

Cesar BREA, M.D., Appellant, v. Maria Isabel PEREZ-BORROTO, As Personal Representative of the Estate of Rene Perez-Borroto, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided August 16, 1988.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1988-08-16

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently June 1989

3 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Is the trial court limited by the non-contingent fee agreement between attorney and client when the trial court applies the principles set forth in Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145 (Fla. 1985), to determine an attorney's fee award pursuant to section 768.56, Florida Statutes (1983) (repealed ch. 85-175)?”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 544 So. 2d 1022 - Perez-Borroto v. Brea

“limits fees in contingent fee cases but does not impose the same limitations in non-contingent fee matters,”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 544 So. 2d 1022 - Perez-Borroto v. Brea

Relies on 472 So. 2d 1145 - Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Rowe · 498 So. 2d 493 - Alston v. Sundeck Products, Inc. · Maserati Automobiles Inc. v. Caplan

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1988-08-16

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Lanza, O'Connor, Armstrong, Sinclair & Tunstall, Coral Gables, Rhea P. Grossman, Miami, for appellant.

¶2Gerald E. Rosser, Miami, for appellee.

¶3Before NESBITT, BASKIN and FERGUSON, JJ.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5Finding that the trial court erred in limiting to the amount of the parties' contract an attorney's fee award under section 768.56, Florida Statutes (1983) (repealed ch. 85-175), we reverse the final judgment awarding attorney's fees. Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Rowe,472 So.2d 1145 (Fla. 1985), limits fees in contingent fee cases but does not impose the same limitations in non-contingent fee matters. Maserati Autos., Inc. v. Caplan,522 So.2d 993 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Alston v. Sundeck Products, Inc.,498 So.2d 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986).

¶6We certify that the decision of this court in this cause passes upon a question of great public importance:

IS THE TRIAL COURT LIMITED BY THE NON-CONTINGENT FEE AGREEMENT BETWEEN ATTORNEY AND CLIENT WHEN THE TRIAL COURT APPLIES THE PRINCIPLES SET FORTH IN FLORIDA PATIENT'S COMPENSATION FUND v. ROWE,472 So.2d 1145 (FLA. 1985), TO DETERMINE AN ATTORNEY'S FEE AWARD PURSUANT TO SECTION 768.56, FLORIDA STATUTES (1983) (REPEALED CH. 85-175)?

¶7Reversed and remanded.

/529/so2d/824 · .json · Public domain