Sunday, January 3, 2010

Second District Reverses Judgment Based Upon Improper Accelerated Rent & Failure To Specify Basis For Attorneys Fees

In Peacock v. Ace (2D09-355), the Second District reversed the trial court's judgment because it included an award of accelerated rents for which the appellee was not entitled and because the judgment was "fundamentally erroneous on its face because it does not contain specific findings concerning the number of hours reasonably expended and the reasonableness of the attorney's hourly rate."  The judgment was reversed even without a transcript of the attorney fee hearing and the court stated:
We note that the record lacks a transcript of the final hearing or an approved statement of the proceedings as authorized by Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.200(b)(4). "Even so, this court previously has determined that the absence of the required findings in the written order renders the order fundamentally erroneous on its face and that the lack of transcript 'does not preclude appellate review.' "
Additionally, the court certified the following question as one of great public importance:
IS AN ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEY'S FEES PURSUANT TO FLORIDA PATIENT'S COMPENSATION FUND V. ROWE, 472 SO. 2D 1145 (FLA. 1985), THAT LACKS THE REQUIRED FINDINGS REGARDING THE NUMBER OF HOURS REASONABLY EXPENDED AND THE REASONABLENESS OF THE HOURLY RATE CHARGED FUNDAMENTALLY ERRONEOUS ON ITS FACE, THUS REQUIRING REVERSAL, EVEN WHEN THE APPELLATE RECORD DOES NOT INCLUDE A TRANSCRIPT OR APPROVED STATEMENT OF THE PROCEEDINGS BELOW?

0 comments:

Post a Comment