Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

  • Bloglovin
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • Home
  • Locations
    • Where We Practice in Florida
    • Where We Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Bruce D. Burk
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Steven A. Ochsner
    • Alexis C. Upton
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

October 20, 2017 by admin

Attorney’s fees — Appellate — Multiplier — Law of the case — Where appellate court affirmed trial court’s award of attorney’s fees including a contingency fee multiplier for trial court services, granted motion for appellate attorney’s fees, and remanded to trial court for determination of amount of appellate fees, trial court was not bound by law of the case to award a multiplier when determining amount of appellate fees

42
Fla. L. Weekly D2199aTop of Form

Attorney’s
fees — Appellate — Multiplier — Law of the case — Where appellate court
affirmed trial court’s award of attorney’s fees including a contingency fee
multiplier for trial court services, granted motion for appellate attorney’s
fees, and remanded to trial court for determination of amount of appellate fees,
trial court was not bound by law of the case to award a multiplier when
determining amount of appellate fees

TRG Columbus Development Venture,
LTD, Appellant, vs. LUIS SIFONTES, Appellee. 3rd District. Case No. 3D16-2323.
L.T. Case No. 08-29374. Opinion filed October 18, 2017. An Appeal from the
Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, William Thomas, Judge. Counsel: Greenberg
Traurig, P.A., and Elliot H. Scherker, Brigid F. Cech Samole, and Katherine M.
Clemente, for appellant. Vila, Padron & Diaz, P.A., and Kara D. Phinney,
for appellee.

(Before SUAREZ, EMAS, and LOGUE,
JJ.)

(LOGUE, J.) TRG Columbus Development
Venture, LTD, appeals a second final judgment awarding appellate attorney’s
fees and costs to Luis Sifontes. Because the trial court incorrectly concluded
it was bound by the law of the case, we reverse the award of a multiplier. We
affirm all remaining portions of the judgment without further comment.

Sifontes previously prevailed in a
breach of contract action against TRG. This court affirmed the final judgment. TRG
Columbus Dev. Venture, LTD, LLC v. Sifontes
, 138 So. 3d 458 (Fla. 3d DCA
2014) (table decision). The trial court awarded attorney’s fees to Sifontes
based on the underlying breach of contract action and subsequent appeal. TRG
then appealed that award of fees, and in a written opinion this court affirmed,
concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining the
reasonable hourly rate and awarding a contingency fee multiplier of 2.0 for
trial fees. TRG Columbus Dev. Venture, LTD. v. Sifontes, 163 So. 3d 548
(Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (Sifontes II). This court then granted Sifontes’
motion for appellate attorney’s fees based on a prevailing party provision in
the underlying contract, and we remanded to the trial court for determination
of amount.

Following a September 2016 hearing
on fees, the trial court entered the final judgment at issue in this appeal.
The trial court awarded Sifontes a total of $234,210.28 in appellate attorney’s
fees. It found that 230.5 hours billed were compensable at an hourly rate of
$450. Concluding that a multiplier was law of the case based on this court’s
prior decision in Sifontes II, the trial court applied a multiplier of
2.0 to the lodestar of $103,725. We reverse the application of the multiplier.

As this court has recognized, “[t]he
application of a multiplier is the exception, not the rule” and the “strong
presumption” that the lodestar figure is reasonable is overcome only in
exceptional and rare circumstances. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Alvarez,
175 So. 3d 352, 357-58 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015). In order for a trial court to award
a contingency fee multiplier, it must consider the following three factors:

(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 [Fla. Patient’s Comp. Fund v.]
Rowe
[, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985)] 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).

Here, the trial court acknowledged
that it did not conduct any inquiry as to the Quanstrom factors.
Instead, it concluded — based on the reasoning of Stack v. Lewis, 641
So. 2d 969 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) and Board of Trustees of the Jacksonville
Police & Fire Fund v. Kicklighter
, 122 So. 3d 510 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)
— that it was bound by law of the case to apply the multiplier that was
previously applied to the litigation on the merits and affirmed by this court
in Sifontes II.

In Stack, the First District
affirmed a multiplier for both appellate fees and trial fees, concluding that
“there is no reason to treat the appellate hours differently from the trial
hours.” 641 So. 2d at 970. And in Kicklighter, the First District relied
on Stack to affirm a multiplier for appellate fees, noting, “when a
trial court makes the determination as to the appropriateness of a fee
multiplier, that same determination applies to the appellate fees expended by
the same counsel in litigating the case on appeal.” 122 So. 3d at 511.

But Stack and Kicklighter
are inapplicable here. Those cases involved fees earned from direct appeals on
the merits where any litigation over fees was only tangential. The fees at
issue here do not concern an appeal on the merits. Instead, they largely
concern the fees for a separate appeal regarding the extent and amount of
appellate fees after an appellate court already determined entitlement to
appellate attorney’s fees. At this stage, where fees — not merits — are the
only issue, and after the basic entitlement to fees has already been awarded by
a prior appellate decision, there is in fact “reason to treat the appellate
hours differently from the trial hours.” See Stack, 641 So. 2d at
970. Absent evidence of the applicability of the Quanstrom factors, the
presumption that the novelty, difficulty, and complexity of a case will be
reflected in the number of hours reasonably spent on the litigation returns to
govern the dispute. Alvarez, 175 So. 3d at 357-58.

Accordingly, because the trial court
incorrectly concluded it was bound by the law of the case, we reverse the award
of a multiplier without prejudice to the court awarding a multiplier in the
event it properly finds the Quanstrom factors are met after the
appropriate hearing. We remand for further proceedings consistent with this
opinion.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part
and remanded.

* * *Bottom of Form

 

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Blog Archives

  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013

Footer

The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2021 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982