From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Martin County v. Polivka Paving

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Aug 17, 2011
82 So. 3d 1023 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

Opinion

No. 4D09–248.

2011-08-17

MARTIN COUNTY, Florida, Appellant, v. POLIVKA PAVING, INC., d/b/a Polivka Surface Engineering, Ltd., Appellee.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Martin County; Robert R. Makemson, Judge; L.T. Case No. 07–917CA.Stephen Fry, County Attorney, and David A. Acton, Senior Assistant County Attorney, Stuart, for appellant. Joseph W. Lawrence, II and Diana J. Zelmer of Vezina, Lawrence & Piscitelli, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.


Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Martin County; Robert R. Makemson, Judge; L.T. Case No. 07–917CA.Stephen Fry, County Attorney, and David A. Acton, Senior Assistant County Attorney, Stuart, for appellant. Joseph W. Lawrence, II and Diana J. Zelmer of Vezina, Lawrence & Piscitelli, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

In Martin County v. Polivka Paving, Inc., 44 So.3d 126 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010), we reversed that portion of a final judgment awarding home office overhead damages and remanded for the entry of an amended final judgment. This case is an appeal from an award of attorney's fees. Although the appellee/plaintiff remains the prevailing party entitled to an award of attorney's fees, the reversal on a significant aspect of the underlying case requires the trial court to reconsider the amount of attorney's fees awarded; the trial court “must evaluate the relationship between the successful and unsuccessful claims and determine whether the investigation and prosecution of the successful claims can be separated from the unsuccessful claims.” Fla. Patient's Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145, 1151 (Fla.1985). On remand, the trial court should attempt to determine whether the plaintiff's attorneys spent a separate and distinct amount of time on the issue of home office overhead damages that then can be backed out of the lodestar. We agree with the trial court that some contingency risk multiplier was appropriate in this case, but on remand the trial court should evaluate how the adjusted result obtained impacts the amount of the multiplier.

Reversed and remanded.

STEVENSON, GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Martin County v. Polivka Paving

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Aug 17, 2011
82 So. 3d 1023 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)
Case details for

Martin County v. Polivka Paving

Case Details

Full title:MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA, Appellant, v. POLIVKA PAVING, INC., d/b/a Polivka…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: Aug 17, 2011

Citations

82 So. 3d 1023 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)