Meli Inv. Corp. v. O.R.
| Decision Date | 06 July 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-2108,92-2108 |
| Citation | 621 So.2d 676 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Parties | 18 Fla. L. Week. D1557 MELI INVESTMENT CORP., etc., Appellant, v. O.R., et al., Appellees. |
De Oliveira & Associates, and Cristina de Oliveira, Coral Gables, for appellant.
Ronald S. Lowy, Miami Beach, and Sharon L. Christenbury, Miami, for appellees.
Before BARKDULL, NESBITT and GODERICH, JJ.
Meli Investment Corporation (landlord) appeals the trial court's order which applied a risk multiplier to an award of attorneys fees to O.R. and his wife (tenants).
Landlord brought suit against tenants as holdover tenants, Sec. 83.58, Fla.Stat. (1991), seeking damages pursuant to section 83.04, Florida Statutes (1991). The tenants counterclaimed for wrongful eviction, harassment, and discrimination on the basis of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), pursuant to section 760.50, Florida Statutes (1991). The partial final judgment entered on the landlord's complaint found the tenants to be tenants at will, not holdover tenants, and, therefore, entitled to fifteen days written notice of termination of their tenancy. Secs. 83.01, 83.03(3), Fla.Stat. (1991). The final judgment on the counterclaim found that the landlord had discriminated against the tenants on the basis that O.R. was, or was regarded as being, infected with the AIDS virus, and awarded the tenants $5,000 in liquidated damages. The court also reserved jurisdiction to tax costs and attorneys fees in both orders. This court affirmed both judgments in a per curiam decision without opinion.
Tenants timely filed a motion for attorneys fees and costs, as provided for in sections 83.48 and 760.50(6)(a)3., Florida Statutes (1991). A hearing was held during which each party presented expert testimony as to the reasonable number of hours tenants' counsel should have spent in defending against the landlord's complaint and in pursuing the counterclaim, as well as a reasonable hourly fee. The tenants' expert testified that 2.5 would be an appropriate multiplier, taking into consideration both the defense of the complaint and the pursuit of the counterclaim, while the landlord's expert opined that both the complaint and the counterclaim were straightforward, thus warranting no multiplier. Tenants' counsel presented evidence that he had taken the case on a contingency basis, and testified regarding the novelty of an AIDS discrimination case, the undesirability of taking such a case, and the intricacy of the landlord/tenant issues involved.
In its order, the trial court found tenants' counsel reasonably expended 60 hours on behalf of the tenants, and that $175 per hour was a reasonable fee. The court then applied a risk multiplier of 2, for a total award of $21,000. In applying the multiplier, the court specifically noted: a) tenants would have faced substantial difficulty in finding counsel in the local or other relevant market; b) the case was exceptional in that it was an AIDS discrimination case under the recently enacted AIDS discrimination statute; c) the case was a public enforcement case and such actions should be encouraged rather than discouraged; and d) the case had been accepted on a full contingency basis and success was unlikely at the outset.
The Florida Supreme Court has placed attorneys fee cases into three basic categories: 1) public policy enforcement cases; 2) tort and contract claims; and 3) family law, eminent domain, and estate and trust matters. Standard Guar. Ins. Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So.2d 828, 833 (Fla.1990). Quanstrom rejected the general use of risk multipliers in category 1 and 3 cases, but approved their use in category 2 cases, if certain criteria are met. In a special concurrence, Justice Overton in Lane v. Head, 566 So.2d 508, 513 (Fla.1990) noted:
[In...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Weaver v. School Bd. of Leon County, 91-2920
...statute, sections 817.40 and 817.41, Florida Statutes (1987) contemplates both public and private vindication); Meli Investment Corp. v. O.R., 621 So.2d 676 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (case was public policy enforcement case to the extent tenants' counterclaim was based on AIDS discrimination statu......
-
Nalasco v. Buckman, Buckman & Reid, Inc.
...in Quanstrom, the supreme court severely restricted the use of multipliers in public policy enforcement cases); Meli Inv. Corp. v. O.R., 621 So.2d 676, 677 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (citing Justice Overton's special concurrence in Lane in support of the restrictive use of multipliers in public pol......
-
Boardman Petroleum, Inc. v. Tropic Tint of Jupiter, Inc., 94-3464
...adjustment for risk, substantial difficulties would be faced in finding counsel in the local or relevant market); Meli Inv. Corp. v. O.R., 621 So.2d 676 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). Therefore, we find no error in the trial court's decision to award fees, determination of the lodestar or application ......
-
Entitlement to attorneys' fees under FDUTPA.
...cases. Some have permitted consideration, and some of those have actually used multipliers. See, e.g., Meli Investment Corp. v. O.R., 621 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1993); Boardman Petroleum v. Tropic Tint Juniper, 668 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1996); Olde Discount Corp. v. Amsel, 800 So.......