- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
CURRENT BLDRS. v. FIRST SEALORD, 4D06-4076 (Fla.App. 4 Dist. 6-4-2008)
WARNER, J.
In moving for rehearing, Current Builders suggests that our ruling on First Sealord's motion for attorney's fees is contrary to Franzen v. Lacuna Golf Limited Partnership, 717 So. 2d 1090 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), which was followed in Froman v. Kirland, 746 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). We disagree. Although in Franzen we reversed for reapportionment of fees, the attorney expert in that case did not attempt to distinguish between fees incurred regarding successful claims as opposed to the unsuccessful claims. Here, on the contrary, both attorneys, their experts, and the court concluded that the successful claims were inextricably intertwined with the unsuccessful claims. Thus, this factual difference between Franzen and this case dictates the different result. We do, however, grant rehearing to the extent that the amount of the fees should be limited to $125,000, the amount requested in First Sealord's brief.
FARMER and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Alert