STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA CONDOMINIUMS, TIMESHARES AND MOBILE HOMES

Transcription

1 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA CONDOMINIUMS, TIMESHARES AND MOBILE HOMES IN RE: PETITION FOR ARBITRATION CARMEL OF BRYN-MAWR CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., Petitioner, v. Fee Case No Rel. Case No ELIZABETH P. FLORKO, Respondent. / FINAL ORDER ON MOTION FOR ATTORNEY S FEES AND COSTS On October 8, 2012, Carmel of Bryn-Mawr Condominium Association, Inc. (the Association), the legal entity responsible for the operation of the Carmel Bryn-Mawr Condominium located in Pinellas County, Florida, moved for an award of $ in attorney s fees and $50.00 in costs. By order dated October 10, 2012, Respondent was directed to file a response to the Association s motion within 20 days of the date of the order. As of the date this order, Respondent has not filed a response. Procedural History This fees case arises from arbitration case number In the underlying case the Association alleged that Elizabeth P. Florko (Respondent) owns unit 5 at the Carmel of Bryn-Mawr Condominium and is maintaining two dogs in her unit that each exceed 20 pounds at maturity in violation of paragraph 2 of the Association s rules and regulations. The petition further claimed that one of the dogs, on one occasion, aggressively sought to attack another resident in violation of Article 16(d)(iii) of the 1 The case style of the Oder Permitting Response stated an incorrect case number for this fees case. The correct case number is and shall be used in all future pleadings. 1

2 Declaration of Condominium. As relief the Association requested that Respondent be ordered to remove the dogs. On August 28, 2012, a Final Order On Default was entered finding that Respondent had committed the violations alleged in the petition and granting the Association its requested relief. On September 4, 2012, the Arbitration Section received a letter from Alicia Brannon, Esq., stating that she represents Respondent s parents. The letter further stated that Respondent was hospitalized in residential psychiatric care and requested that this matter be continued in order to permit Respondent to retain representation and to file a response. By order dated October 16, 2012, a telephonic case management was scheduled in this matter on October 29, 2012 at 2:00 p.m. On October 22, 2012, Ms. Brannon filed a request to be removed as the attorney of record for Respondent. By order dated October 23, 2012, Ms. Brannon was removed as the attorney of record for Respondent and Respondent was directed to either appear on her own behalf or have a representative appear at the case management conference. The case conference was held as scheduled. Legal counsel for the Association appeared. Neither Respondent nor a representative on behalf of her appeared. Therefore, the undersigned determined that this matter should proceed forward. Prevailing Party Pursuant to (4)(k), Fla. Stat., the prevailing party in an arbitration proceeding shall be awarded the costs of the arbitration and reasonable attorney s fees in an amount determined by the arbitrator. A party is a prevailing party if it succeeds on a significant issue in the arbitration and achieves some of the benefit sought in bringing the action. See Moritz v. Hoyt Enterprises, Inc., 604 So. 2d 807, 809 (Fla. 1992) (citing Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983)). In the underlying case, Respondent was found to have committed the violations as alleged in the petition and 2

3 the Association was granted its requested relief. Therefore, the Association is the prevailing party and entitled to recover its reasonable attorney s fees and costs. Attorney s Fees and Costs The next issue to be decided is the reasonableness of the attorney s fees and costs claimed by the association. In Florida Patient s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145, 1150 (Fla. 1985), the Supreme Court adopted the federal lodestar approach as the foundation for setting reasonable fee awards. This approach requires the trial court to determine a lodestar figure by multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation by a reasonable hourly rate for the services of the prevailing party s attorney. Fashion Tile & Marble v. Alpha One Construction, 532 So. 2d 1306 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). In undertaking this analysis, the reasonableness of the hourly rate and the number of hours reasonably expended must be separately considered. See Rowe, 472 So. 2d at In determining the reasonableness of attorney s fees, the criteria set forth in Rule 4-1.5, Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, Rules of Professional Conduct [then Disciplinary Rule 2-106(b) of the Florida Bar Code of Professional Responsibility] should be applied. Id. at The factors for determining a reasonable attorney s fee set forth in Rule are basically the same as the factors set forth in Rule 61B , Florida Administrative Code. The Association seeks reimbursement for the efforts of Joseph R. Cianfrone, Esq., for 0.60 hours at the rate of $ per hour. Mr. Cianfrone has been practicing law for over 25 years. The requested rate and number of hours is reasonable. Therefore, the Association is awarded $ for Mr. Cianfrone s work. The Association also seeks reimbursement for the legal services of Stephan C. Nikoloff, Esq, and Daniel Greenberg, Esq., for 0.20 and 2.6 hours of efforts, respectively, at the hourly rate of $ Mr. Nikoloff has been practicing law for 3

4 approximately 4 years and Mr. Greenberg as been practicing for about 5 years. The number of hours is found to reasonable. Furthermore, the requested hourly rate is found to be reasonable considering the efficiency with which this case was litigated by the Association s legal counsel. Therefore, the Association is awarded $ The Association seeks reimbursement for 0.40 hours of the legal services by Tiffany A. Grant, Esq. Ms. Grant s Affidavit of Attorneys Fees indicates that the 0.40 hours involved a collection and enforcement matter against Respondent s unit. The arbitration case did not involve a collection dispute and it is unclear as to the amount of time spent by Ms. Grant on the collection dispute. Therefore, the Association will not be awarded attorney s fees for Ms. Grant. The Association seeks reimbursement for the $50.00 arbitration filing fee. The filing fee is a necessary expense, and, therefore is awarded. Based upon the foregoing, it is ORDERED: Within thirty (30) days of the date this order, Elizabeth P. Florko shall pay Carmel of Bryn-Mawr Condominium Association, Inc. the amount of $ for reimbursement of the attorney s fees and costs incurred by the Association in the underlying case. DONE AND ORDERED this 5 th day of November, 2012, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. James W. Earl, Arbitrator Department of Business and Professional Regulation Arbitration Section 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida Telephone: Facsimile:

5 Trial de novo This decision shall be binding on the parties unless a complaint for trial de novo is filed in accordance with section , Florida Statutes. Certificate of Service I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Final Order has been sent by U.S. Mail to the following persons on this 5 th day of November, 2012: Daniel J. Greenberg, Esq. Joseph R. Cianfrone, P.A Bayshore Boulevard, Suite A Dunedin, FL Attorneys for Petitioner Elizabeth P. Florko 2749 Countryside Blvd., Apt. 5 Clearwater, FL Respondent James W. Earl, Arbitrator 5