From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Shipwatch Development Corp. v. Salmon

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Dec 15, 1994
646 So. 2d 838 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

Summary

holding in a very similar case that although awarding attorney's fees was appropriate, the trial court erred "by not adjusting the lodestar fee based on the extent of success achieved by counsel for [the contractor]"

Summary of this case from Dow v. McKinley

Opinion

No. 93-3294.

December 15, 1994.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Walton County, Laura Melvin, J.

Matthew W. Burns, Destin, for appellant.

Richard H. Powell and F.B. Estergren of Richard H. Powell, P.A., Ft. Walton Beach, for appellee.


CORRECTED OPINION


The opinion issued October 17, 1994, is withdrawn and the following corrected opinion substituted in its place.

This is a mechanic's lien case arising out of a construction dispute between appellant Shipwatch Development Corporation, the owner, and appellee Harold J. Salmon, Jr., the contractor. The trial court imposed a lien against Shipwatch's property for an unpaid balance of $16,024.07. This amount resulted from the contract price less a credit of $8,004.41 in favor of Shipwatch for the cost to complete certain punchlist items and for approved substitutions. The court denied Shipwatch's request for an additional credit of $11,349.00 for other substitutions. The court also denied Salmon's request for additional work in the amount of $11,734.67. Included in the lien imposed by the judgment below are amounts for Salmon's attorney's fees, as well as interest from November 5, 1991. The trial court found that Salmon's claim of lien was timely filed on November 5, 1992. Shipwatch raises seven issues on appeal, all except two of which concern factual matters as to which the trial court's findings and conclusions are supported by competent substantial evidence. We affirm as to these issues. We reverse the attorney's fee award and modify the award of prejudgment interest.

Salmon's claim of lien was in the amount of $40,688.92, and the complaint ultimately filed sought $41,476.67. By the final judgment, Salmon recovered a lien and judgment in the amount of $16,024.07. As the prevailing party, Salmon is entitled to attorney's fees under section 713.29, Florida Statutes (1991). The court erred, however, by not adjusting the lodestar fee based on the extent of success achieved by counsel for Salmon. Florida Patient Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145 (Fla. 1985); Fashion Tile Marble, Inc. v. Alpha One Construction Assoc., Inc., 532 So.2d 1306 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). We therefore reverse the attorney's fee award and instruct the trial court to enter a new order consonant with these two cases.

The court also erred in awarding prejudgment interest prior to the date the contractor's affidavit was served. Norin Mortgage Corp. v. Wasco, Inc., 343 So.2d 940 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). The final judgment must be modified to indicate that prejudgment interest accrues from April 21, 1992, the date the contractor's affidavit was served, rather than the claim of lien date selected by the trial court.

Both parties seek attorney's fees on appeal pursuant to section 713.29. We find that Salmon has prevailed on the significant issues presented and therefore provisionally grant his motion for appellate attorney's fees. See, Moritz v. Hoyt Enterprises, Inc., 604 So.2d 807 (Fla. 1992). On remand the trial court will determine an appropriate award of attorney's fees on appeal based upon the law as set forth in Rowe, supra. Appellant's motion for attorney's fees is denied.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED with directions.

MICKLE and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Shipwatch Development Corp. v. Salmon

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Dec 15, 1994
646 So. 2d 838 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

holding in a very similar case that although awarding attorney's fees was appropriate, the trial court erred "by not adjusting the lodestar fee based on the extent of success achieved by counsel for [the contractor]"

Summary of this case from Dow v. McKinley
Case details for

Shipwatch Development Corp. v. Salmon

Case Details

Full title:SHIPWATCH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION FOR PROFIT…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District

Date published: Dec 15, 1994

Citations

646 So. 2d 838 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

Citing Cases

Zalay v. Ace Cabinets of Clearwater

Thus, the lien we recognize in this case to include costs is consistent with the treatment the Zalays could…

Jomar Props., L.L.C. v. Bayview Constr. Corp.

We conclude, however, that the “results obtained” pursuant to Rowe allows the court to consider an analysis…