Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed July 13, 2022.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D21-305
Lower Tribunal Nos. 20-261 AP, 16-20107 CC
________________
Hosanna Community Baptist Church, Inc.,
Appellant/Cross-Appellee,
vs.
24 HR Air Service, Inc.,
Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Michael G.
Barket, Judge.
Pierre Simon, LLC, and Faudlin Pierre (Fort Lauderdale), for
appellant/cross-appellee.
Law Office of Alexander Alvarez, and Alexander Alvarez, Anamari C.
Del Rio, and Mickey J. Bahr, for appellee/cross-appellant.
Before SCALES, HENDON, and GORDO, JJ.
On Partial Confession of Error
HENDON, J.
The plaintiff below, Hosanna Community Baptist Church, Inc.
(“Church”), appeals the trial court’s order awarding the Church $5,000 in
attorney’s fees against the defendant below, 24 HR Air Service, Inc.
(“Contractor”) (“Attorney’s Fees Order”). The Contractor cross-appeals the
trial court’s order finding that the Church is entitled to recover attorney’s
fees from the Contractor (“Entitlement Order”). We affirm the Entitlement
Order without further discussion. See Stockman v. Downs,
573 So. 2d
835, 837-38 (Fla. 1991) (“Where a party has notice that an opponent claims
entitlement to attorney’s fees, and by its conduct recognizes or acquiesces
to that claim or otherwise fails to object to the failure to plead entitlement,
that party waives any objection to the failure to plead a claim for attorney’s
fees.”). We affirm, in part, and reverse, in part, the Attorney’s Fees Order,
and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Following our review of the arguments raised by the Church on
appeal, we conclude that (1) the trial court, as conceded by the Contractor,
erred by disregarding, without justification, the parties’ stipulation as to the
reasonable number of hours expended by the parties, and we remand with
instructions for the trial court to enter a final order awarding attorney’s fees
consistent with the parties’ stipulation that the Church’s counsel expended
2
58.79 reasonable hours litigating the action, see Lizardi v. Federated Nat’l
Ins.,
322 So. 3d 184, 188 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021) (“In rendering a fee award,
trial courts are required to make specific findings to support their
conclusions regarding the number of hours reasonably expended, the
reasonable hourly rate, and appropriateness of the reduction or
enhancement factors.”); Mitchell v. Mitchell,
94 So. 3d 706, 707 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2012) (“It is well-settled that an award of attorney's fees must be
supported by substantial competent evidence and contain express findings
regarding the number of hours reasonably expended and a reasonable
hourly rate for the type of litigation involved. These requirements are
mandatory.”) (internal citations omitted); (2) the trial court erred by
disregarding, without justification, the parties’ stipulation as to costs for the
Church’s fee expert and the court reporter, and we remand with instructions
for the trial court to enter a final order awarding as costs to the Church
$2,000 for its expert fee witness and $120 for the court reporter; (3) the trial
court erred by awarding $250 as an hourly rate for the Church’s counsel
without making express findings as to the majority of the factors set forth in
Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe,
472 So. 2d 1145, 1150 (Fla.
1985), and we remand to the trial court to reconsider the hourly rate for the
Church’s counsel after addressing the Rowe factors; (4) the trial court erred
3
by failing to include in its Attorney’s Fees Order provisions awarding both
pre- and post-judgment interest to the Church, and we remand with
instructions for the trial court to include such provisions in its order, see
Quality Engineered Installation, Inc. v. Higley S., Inc.,
670 So. 2d 929, 930-
31 (Fla. 1996) (holding that “interest accrues from the date the entitlement
to attorney fees is fixed through agreement, arbitration award, or court
determination, even though the amount of the award has not yet been
determined”); Wood v. Unknown Pers. Representative of Est. of Burnette,
56 So. 3d 74, 76 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (stating that computation of
prejudgment interest is a purely ministerial duty); see also § 55.03, Fla.
Stat. (2021) (setting forth rate of interest on judgments or decree); and (5)
the trial court erred by failing to include a provision in the Attorney’s Fees
Order requiring the Contractor to complete the Fact Information Sheet, and
we remand for the trial court to include such a provision in its order, see
Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.560(c) (providing, if requested by the prevailing party or
attorney, the judge shall include a provision in a final judgment requiring the
debtor to complete the Fact Information Sheet). Accordingly, as to the
Attorney’s Fees Order, we affirm, in part, and reverse, in part, and remand
for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
4
Affirmed, in part; reversed, in part, and remanded for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
5
