Chandler v. Chandler, 75-1300
| Decision Date | 02 April 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 75-1300,75-1300 |
| Citation | 330 So.2d 190 |
| Parties | William Clinton CHANDLER, Appellant, v. Dorothy Ricketts CHANDLER, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
George W. Phillips, Tampa, for appellant.
C. Eugene Jones of Ginsburg, Ross, Dent & Byrd, P. A., Sarasota, for appellee.
This action for change of custody was filed and tried in Dade City, Pasco County, wherein a judgment of dissolution of the marriage between the parties hereto was entered several years previously. Counsel for the appellee ex-wife was a sarasota attorney who, at the conclusion of the child custody proceeding (which ended in favor of the ex-wife), was awarded a $3,000 fee. The ex-husband appeals that award. We reverse.
The foregoing award was improper for two reasons. First, it is patent that the fee was based on the ex-wife's attorney's own commendably candid computation of thirty hours of time and labor spent, Sixteen of which were for travelling from Sarasota to Dade City. Now, there is no real dispute but that the other fourteen hours were reasonably necessary in defense of the original custody award; so we are faced with the question of whether Travel time is properly included in an award of attorneys' fees. We think not. We are aware of no authority for including it and, indeed, Canon 2 of the Code of Professional Responsibility indicates to the contrary when, among other factors properly to be considered in determining a reasonable fee, it cites the fee 'customarily charged in the Locality for similar legal services.' 1 In the absence of a showing that there is no local legal expertise on the issues involved in the matter (obviously not the case here), this factor should not, as it was here, be overlooked. Certainly a reasonable fee for Local counsel would not contemplate the inclusion of travel time as compensable time. It would be incongruous, to say the least, it in the ordinary case nonlocal counsel should fare better insofar as his fees may be assessed against the other party.
On the latter point, we emphasize that we do not hold that a party may not employ any counsel, from any place, he chooses so long as that counsel qualifies to practice law in this state. Nor do we limit in any way the fee arrangement between them. We do circumscribe, however, the portion thereof assessable against his adversary.
The Second infirmity in the fee awarded in the instant case is that it was based on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Taylor Indus. Constr., Inc. v. Westfield Ins. Co.
...761 So.2d 406 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Gwen Fearing Real Estate, Inc. v. Wilson, 430 So.2d 589 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Chandler v. Chandler, 330 So.2d 190, 191 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976) ("[W]e are faced with the question of whether travel time is properly included in an award of attorneys' fees. We think ......
-
Baseball at Trotwood v. Dayton Prof. Baseball
...traveling from his office in one county to the court at which the proceeding would be held in another county. See Chandler v. Chandler, 330 So.2d 190 (Fla. App.1976) (denying recovery for attorney travel time which represented more than 50% of the attorney's fees requested). Therein, the co......
-
Collier Cnty. v. RTG, LLC, Case No: 2:17-cv-14-FtM-38CM
...time from attorneys' fees award "when there was no showing a competent local attorney could not be obtained"); Chandler v. Chandler, 330 So.2d at 190, 191 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); see also Griffin v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., No. 3:09-cv-11128, 2014 WL 12619188, at *4 n.6 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 3, 2014)......
-
Fence Wholesalers of America, Inc. v. Beneficial Commercial Corp.
...local attorney could not be obtained. Gwen Fearing Real Estate, Inc. v. Wilson, 430 So.2d 589 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Chandler v. Chandler, 330 So.2d 190 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). A dealer arranged a sixty month lease-purchase agreement for a truck tractor between lessee Fence Wholesalers of America......
-
Family law fees - the high points and the current state of the law.
...[22] See generally Haines, 711 So. 2d 209. [23] Wright v. Wright, 577 So. 2d 1355 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1991); but see Chandler v. Chandler, 330 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 1979) (travel time not [24] See generally Sinclair, Louis, Siegel Heath, Nussbaum & Zavertnik v. Rojas, 529 So. 2d 749 (......