OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT. vs. ** CASE NO. 3D TRIBUNAL NO Appellee. **

Transcription

1 NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JANUARY TERM, A.D ROLE MODEL BUILDERS, INC., ** Appellant, ** vs. ** CASE NO. 3D JOHN LANZETTA, ** LOWER TRIBUNAL NO Appellee. ** Opinion filed March 5, An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Gerald D. Hubbart, Judge. Levey, Airan, Brownstein, Shevin, Friedman, Roen & Kelso, and John Kelso, for appellant. Broad & Cassel, and Gary Lehman; and Carla A. Jones, and Lewis R. Cohen; and Philip D. Parrish, for appellee. Before JORGENSON, GERSTEN, and RAMIREZ, JJ. RAMIREZ, J. Role Model Builders, Inc. appeals from an adverse final judgment assessing attorney s fees and costs in favor of appellee John Lanzetta. We reverse because the trial court s

2 order in which attorney s fees were awarded does not make the requisite findings and the fee awarded does not bear a reasonable relation to the results obtained. In 1995, Lanzetta entered into a contract with Role Model for construction improvements to his home. Role Model subsequently ceased work on Lanzetta s home. Lanzetta sued Role Model, as well as Role Model s president and sole stockholder, Anthony M. Mingoia, Jr., in a multi-count complaint for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, negligence, fraudulent lien, conversion, civil theft, slander of title, fraud in the inducement, negligent misrepresentation, and for violation of the South Florida Building Code. At arbitration, the arbitrator dismissed all of Lanzetta s claims against Mingoia and dismissed five of Lanzetta s eleven claims against Role Model. On September 26, 2000, the arbitrator awarded Lanzetta $43,816, plus interest, against Role Model and found that Lanzetta was not entitled to an award against Mingoia. The judgment entitled Lanzetta to an attorney s fee award. Lanzetta thereafter moved for attorney s fees and to confirm the arbitration judgment. On December 5, 2000, the trial court adopted the arbitrator s final judgment. Role Model appealed the trial court s order to this Court in case no. 3D This 2

3 Court per curiam affirmed that judgment holding that Role Model waived its ability to contest the arbitrator s judgment where it did not move to either vacate or modify the arbitration award within the applicable time period. 1 Lanzetta also appealed to this Court the trial court s denial of an award of attorney s fees against Mingoia in case no. 3D That appeal remains pending. At the attorney s fees hearing, Lanzetta s attorney s fee expert testified that the sum of $98, was a reasonable fee for the litigation services provided by Lewis R. Cohen s firm and attorney Gary Lehman. On February 5, 2001, the trial court awarded Lanzetta $98,000 in fees against Role Model. A trial court s order in which attorney s fees are awarded must set forth specific findings in determining an attorney s hourly rate and the number of hours reasonably expended. Florida Patient s Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145, 1151 (Fla. 1985); South Pointe Family and Children Center, Inc. v. First Nat l Bank of Chicago, 783 So. 2d 327, 328 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). The attorney s fee award must also bear a reasonable relation to the results obtained. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. Quintana, 366 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Ruwitch v. First 1 Role Model Builders, Inc. v. Lanzetta, 813 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). 3

4 Nat l Bank of Miami, 327 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). The trial court in this case simply adopted the arbitrator s award and did not provide a basis for the award, including an allocation of the number of hours attributable to different lawyers based upon different hourly rates. Although Role Model did not object to Lanzetta s billed hourly rates, Role Model objected to the number of hours billed as unreasonably high. The $98,000 fee award is actually more than double the judgment amount of $43,816. The fee award also does not bear a reasonable relationship to the results obtained. Lumbermans Mut. Cas. Co., 366 So. 2d at 530; Ruwitch, 327 So. 2d at 833. The award fails to consider the claims against Mingoia and Role Model that were dismissed. Although the arbitrator determined that the proofs necessary to establish Lanzetta s claims were inextricably intertwined so that the allocation of the attorney s time based upon the successful and unsuccessful claims was not necessary, there is no evidence that the claims were so interrelated that the unsuccessful claims did not substantially increase the attorney s fees. The fee award also fails to specify which of the claims in which Lanzetta prevailed against Role Model entitle Lanzetta to claim a fee award. For all of these reasons, the fee award does not square with 4

5 fairness and justice. Donner v. Donner, 281 So. 2d 399, 401 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). We therefore reverse and remand for the trial court to reconsider its award and make the requisite findings. 5