HomeMy WebLinkAbout0942 i
! .
8S9'799 ~
• IN .THR CIRCUIT COORT OF THB
NI~l8T8BNTa Jt3DICIAL CIRCdIT xN ~
~ . . 2U~iD [+'OR 8T. LOCIB COt1NTY,
~ FIARIQA.
. 87-381-CA-09
THS ATLANTIS ~pILDl[NC; B CONDO- ~
MINItTM A884CxAT'ION, INC. , ~ ~ .
~ ~
~ Plai»tiff, . ~
vs , ~ ~
; ~ ^ .r3~` c.ca
F~ttBOBRiCK L. ANDRBOL~ and MARY n,;
M. ANDRBOLI, h~e vife, ~ . ~
. c<°-~;, 'v'
- c, - • . .
; Defendante. . - : a;1
- _ o~
_
F3N~L JOD~3MBNT FOR ATTOItNEYB FSBS . -
` Thia matter cuae before the Court on Defendant'e Motion for~
attc~rneys feee and cost~. The ~ourt hae caesidered the matter, -
teeti~ony, other:evidence~preeented~and argumente of ooun~el.
At the time~of the hearing,_the attorney for the Oetendant
announced no coeta were being~ s~ught- except reasona~le .
attorneys' feee. The attorney for Defendant testifi~d that he
had~ an unwritten contingent fee agreement with his client, -
pursua~t~ to Which he would not receive a~terneys fees unleee
a~rarded by the Court. Intxoduced i~to evidence aQ Defendan~'a
Bxhibit No. 1~aas the time recorda of the attorney for .
Defendant. It~ie significant to the Court that thie wae one of
three cases involving differer~t Defendant~, but~the same ~facte
- and legal iseues. The caees Mere no~ consolidated. 8owever,
they Kere considered at the ea~~time. • -
Pqrsuan~ to ~[~larida . Patient's ComAensation F~.ind v. Raw~, 472
. So.2d I1.45 FIa. 19853- the first ` eteg for the Caurt to co~sider
is the number o~ houra reaaonably expended on the litigation. It
appeara from the time reaords in thi~ Caee, as weal aa the other '
tMO con~nion cases, that there are eome duplication of .time
charges for ao~ae of the servi~ee. For ieetance, the time record _
in each caee shows 1.O houre an Auguat 27,.1987, to review this ~
Cuurt's ~udgment-and preparation of a lett~r to hie olient. The .
~udc,~?ent in each oaae wae a duplicate, except~for the ca$e style.
The Court feels the total of 3.0 hour~ muet eontain some
- ~ ,
~ ~O~K ~td~ P~6€ -
-
~ . -
_ . _ _ . _ '