Alston v. Sundeck Products, Inc.
| Decision Date | 05 November 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-233,85-233 |
| Parties | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2332 Kenneth ALSTON, Appellant, v. SUNDECK PRODUCTS, INC., and Sun Surfaces, Inc., etc., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Glen Rafkin of Young, Stern & Tannenbaum, P.A., North Miami Beach, for appellant.
Richard M. Birnbaum, Fort Lauderdale and Barbara Compiani for Edna L. Caruso, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellees.
This is an appeal from an award of attorney's fees incidental to civil contempt proceedings. We reverse.
Appellees sued appellant and Sun-Crete of Florida, Inc., in the Circuit Court of Broward County for breach of contract, for stealing trade secrets and for tortious interference with prospective business relationships. A preliminary injunction was entered prohibiting appellant from disclosing, disseminating, or using any of the confidential information and trade secrets obtained from appellees. The trial court subsequently determined that appellant had violated the injunction and entered a judgment finding appellant in contempt and imposing a civil fine of $330,000. In addition, the court retained jurisdiction to assess attorney's fees and costs against appellant. While an appeal from the aforesaid judgment was pending, the trial court held a hearing on appellees' application for attorney's fees and costs and awarded appellees $110,000 attorney's fees and $10,065.56 costs. That award is the subject of this non-final appeal. Four points have been presented by appellant (Sun-Crete of Florida having withdrawn from this appeal), three of which we find require reversal.
Appellant's first point suggests that the attorney's fee and cost award must be reversed and remanded because the amount of the compensatory fine contained in the judgment of contempt has been reversed by this court and, thus, the attorney's fee, which in some measure was based on a consideration of the fine, must also be reversed and remanded. Although numerous factors are involved in the makeup of an attorney's fee award, the amount of the fine levied in this case was certainly one of them. Aristeck Communities, Inc. v. Fuller, 453 So.2d 547 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Taco Nacho v. Hasty House Restaurants, Inc., 436 So.2d 403 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).
Appellant also contends that the fee awarded must be reversed because it greatly exceeds the fee agreed upon by appellees and their counsel. The evidence below reflects that appellees had an agreement with their counsel that they would be paid a specific amount per hour. Based upon that rate, and the total hours spent on the case, the fee owed by appellees was $35,975. The recent case of Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145 (Fla.1985), set out a formula for determining an award of reasonable attorney's fees when the prevailing party is entitled by statute to such fees. We believe Rowe is applicable here. The appellant contends that Rowe also stands for the proposition that in no case should the courtawarded fee exceed that agreement. We cannot agree. Although there is a statement to that effect in Rowe, we believe that statement,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Multitech Corp. v. St. Johns Bluff Inv. Corp.
...when the party prevails on a claim or claims for relief, but is unsuccessful on other unrelated claims. Id. In Alston v. Sundeck Products, Inc., 498 So.2d 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), the court held that although a fixed fee arrangement will usually constitute the best evidence of the reasonabl......
-
Maserati Automobiles Inc. v. Caplan
...only to contingent fee agreements. See Ronlee, Inc. v. Arvida Corp., 515 So.2d 372 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Alston v. Sundeck Prod., Inc., 498 So.2d 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). Additionally, we find error in the trial court's failure to provide specific findings in accordance with Rowe. "In determ......
-
Financial Services, Inc. v. Sheehan
...P.A. v. Alvarez, 490 So.2d 159 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), pet. for review denied, 500 So.2d 545 (Fla.1986); contra Alston v. Sundeck Prods., Inc. 498 So.2d 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), and (b) there was no "enhancement" of the award above a reasonable fee within the meaning of Rowe, even assuming argu......
-
Rhode Island Hosp. Trust Bank v. Coastal Winds South, Inc.
...that plaintiff's fee agreement with counsel is not contingent. It asserts that this is required by Alston v. Sundeck Products, Inc., 498 So.2d 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). However, we find no such requirement in Alston and no error in the manner of computing attorney's fees here. See also Miami......