Perez-Borroto v. Brea
| Decision Date | 08 June 1989 |
| Docket Number | PEREZ-BORROT,P,No. 73007,73007 |
| Citation | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 271,544 So.2d 1022 |
| Parties | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 271 Maria Isabeletitioner, v. Cesar BREA, M.D., Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Gerald E. Rosser of Gerald E. Rosser, P.A., Miami, for petitioner.
Lanza, O'Connor, Armstrong, Sinclair & Tunstall, P.A., Coral Gables, and Rhea P. Grossman of Rhea P. Grossman, P.A., Miami, for respondent.
We have for review Brea v. Perez-Borroto, 529 So.2d 824 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), in which the district court certified the following question as one of great public importance:
Is the trial court limited by the non-contingent fee agreement between attorney and client when the trial court applies the principles set forth in Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145 (Fla.1985), to determine an attorney's fee award pursuant to section 768.56, Florida Statutes (1983) (repealed ch. 85-175)?
Id. at 824. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We answer the certified question in the affirmative and quash the district court's decision.
In this case, Dr. Brea prevailed in a medical malpractice action, entitling him to an award of attorney's fees pursuant to section 768.56, Florida Statutes (1983). Citing our decision in Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145 (Fla.1985), the trial court awarded a fee of $43,000, which was the amount defense counsel had billed Dr. Brea's insurance carrier under their fee agreement providing for payment of $60 per hour and $700 per trial day. Defense counsel contended he was entitled to a fee computed at $125 to $250 per hour, which is the amount expert testimony established as a reasonable fee for a single representation. On appeal, the district court agreed with that position and reversed the trial court, finding that our decision in Rowe "limits fees in contingent fee cases but does not impose the same limitations in non-contingent fee matters," 529 So.2d at 824 ().
We recently addressed the other side of this question in Miami Children's Hospital v. Tamayo, 529 So.2d 667 (Fla.1988). In that case, we limited plaintiff's counsel to a forty percent contingent fee agreement where plaintiff recovered a $5,000 judgment in a medical malpractice action, applying the Rowe principle, that "in no case should the court-awarded fee exceed the fee agreement reached by the attorney and his client." 472 So.2d at 1151. In this case, defense counsel argues that the Rowe principle should not apply to him because there was no contingent fee agreement and our contract limitation statement in Rowe applies only to contingent fee contracts. It is our view that the principles of Rowe must apply equally to both plaintiff and defendant in this type of action. To rule that one side is limited to a prior fee agreement while the other is not would be unfair. The playing field must remain balanced and the principles of Rowe applied equally to both sides. We emphasize again that "all the factors contained in Rowe apply whenever the lodestar approach applies." 529 So.2d at 668 (emphasis added). *
For...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Genetti v. Caterpillar, Inc., S-99-813.
...claims). But see, Maserati Automobiles Inc. v. Caplan, 522 So.2d 993 (Fla. App.1988), disapproved on other grounds, Perez-Borroto v. Brea, 544 So.2d 1022 (Fla.1989) (stating that election is not required between revocation of acceptance and breach of warranty and concluding that election wa......
-
First Baptist Church of Cape Coral, Fla., Inc. v. Compass Constr., Inc.
...party attorney's fees than the plaintiffs would owe their attorney under their contingency fee contract. Moreover, in Perez–Borroto v. Brea, 544 So.2d 1022, 1023 (Fla.1989), we held that “the principles of Rowe must apply equally to both plaintiff and defendant” and limited the fees awarded......
-
Orlando Regional Medical Center, Inc. v. Chmielewski, s. 89-691
...Shore Medical Center, Inc. v. Kennedy, 554 So.2d 8 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), rev. denied, 563 So.2d 632 (Fla.1990). See also Perez-Borroto v. Brea, 544 So.2d 1022 (Fla.1989) (noncontingency contract). Cases involving recovery of a reasonable attorney fee for a prevailing party which fall under a ......
-
Alvine v. Mercedes-Benz of North America
...court-awarded fee exceed the fee agreement reached by the attorney and his client." Maserati, supra, at 503 (citing Perez-Borroto v. Brea, 544 So.2d 1022, 1023 (Fla.1989)). When an attorney and a client agree upon a fixed hourly rate, it would be unjust to allow that attorney a higher rate ......