G.H. Johnson Const. Co. v. A.P.G. Elec., Inc.
| Decision Date | 14 June 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-02071,94-02071 |
| Citation | 656 So.2d 566 |
| Parties | 20 Fla. L. Weekly D1424 G.H. JOHNSON CONSTRUCTION CO., Appellant, v. A.P.G. ELECTRIC, INC., Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jawdet I. Rubaii and Jack F. White, III, of Jawdet I. Rubaii, P.A., Clearwater, for appellant.
Dennis J. Watson, Clearwater, for appellee.
G.H. Johnson Construction Co. (Johnson) appeals the trial court's order which set the amount of appellate attorneys' fees of A.P.G. Electric, Inc. (A.P.G.). We conclude that the trial court abused its discretion and are compelled to reduce the fee award.
In the initial case A.P.G. filed a three-count complaint against Johnson for account stated, open account, and sums due on account. Johnson responded to the complaint with fourteen affirmative defenses. In a one-day nonjury trial, the trial court found for A.P.G. on the theories of account stated and sums due and awarded $22,392 plus interest. This court affirmed that judgment and awarded appellate attorneys' fees and remanded the case to the trial court to set the amount of those fees. The trial court's order setting the appellate fees is now before this court.
The one-day trial consisted of eight or nine witnesses and resulted in a 171-page transcript. The trial court awarded A.P.G. a fee award of approximately $10,000 for the trial. Johnson has paid that award. Johnson's initial appellate brief, including the certificate of service page, was twenty-one pages. Johnson presented four issues on appeal and cited ten cases in its brief. A.P.G.'s answer brief, including the certificate of service page, was eighteen pages. A.P.G. cited nineteen cases in its brief, three of which were the same cases that Johnson cited.
Mr. Watson, A.P.G.'s attorney at trial, sought 42.3 hours at $165 per hour for his work on appeal. 1 This work is broken down as follows:
Mr. Greenleaf, an associate in Watson's firm, sought 31.80 hours at $125 per hour for his work. His work is broken down as follows:
. Review of pleadings, discovery, 3.2 hours
exhibits, and trial transcript
. Research law 4.8 hours
. Review Johnson's brief 2.0 hours
. Preparation of A.P.G.'s brief 21.8 hours
----------
31.8 hours
An attorney testified at the fee hearing that he had reviewed the work of the attorneys representing A.P.G. and found that the fees sought were reasonable. Johnson presented two attorneys who testified that the reasonable fee for this case should be between $2500 and $3500. The trial court awarded A.P.G. forty hours at $165 per hour and thirty-one hours at $125 per hour for a total of $10,475.
We are mindful of the fact that this court should not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court, see Hutchinson v. State, 505 So.2d 579 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), review dismissed, 519 So.2d 603 (Fla.1988); however, an award for excessive hours is subject to an appellate court's reduction. Dalia v. Alvarez, 605 So.2d 1282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). There are some cases, such as the instant case, where the hours compensated in the fee award are too excessive in relation to the time that attorneys in the community reasonably would expend to accomplish a comparable task. See, e.g., Gevertz v. Gevertz, 608 So.2d 129 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Dalia, 605 So.2d at 1283-84; Guthrie v. Guthrie, 357 So.2d 247 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978).
We also are mindful that it was this court which directed the trial court to determine a reasonable attorney fee; however, where the appeal is before this court and we can review the record, the briefs, and the research that was involved in the appeal, this court is equally able to determine the reasonable amount of time that the attorneys representing A.P.G. should have expended in this appeal. Our review leads us to conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in the amount of attorneys' fees it awarded in this case. We conclude that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
CENTEX-ROONEY CONST. CO. v. Martin County
...1992), and the appellate court should not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court. See G.H. Johnson Constr. Co. v. A.P.G. Elec., Inc., 656 So.2d 566, 567 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); see also Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 1941, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983)(trial court'......
-
Fla. Dep't of Agric. & Consumer Servs. & the Fla. Comm'r of Agric. v. Bogorff
...fees for an abuse of discretion. See Daddono v. Miele, 69 So.3d 320, 324 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011); G.H. Johnson Constr. Co. v. A.P.G. Elec., Inc., 656 So.2d 566, 566 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). The trial court thoroughly analyzed the evidence and the statutory factors. It determined that it should use c......
-
Pellar v. Granger Asphalt Paving, Inc., 96-1665
...amount of appellate attorney's fees is reviewable on the merits by the abuse of discretion standard. G.H. Johnson Construction Co. v. A.P.G. Electric Inc., 656 So.2d 566 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). As with other discretionary decisions, we must affirm the order of the trial court if reasonable peop......
-
Youngblood v. Youngblood
...fee that has been awarded for that work. Hoegh v. Estate of Johnson, 985 So.2d 1185 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); G.H. Johnson Constr. Co. v. A.P.G. Elec., Inc., 656 So.2d 566 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Pellar v. Granger Asphalt Paving, Inc., 687 So.2d 282 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Dalia v. Alvarez, 605 So.2d 1......
-
Attorneys' fees on appeal: basic rules and new requirements.
...at 284; Zaremba Florida Co. v. Klinger, 550 So. 2d 1131 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1989). (38) See G.H. Johnson Constr. Co. v. A.P.G. Elec., Inc., 656 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. (39) See, e.g., Starcher v. Starcher, 430 So. 2d 991 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1983) (holding that trial court's attorneys' fees orde......