22ND Century Properties, LLC and David F. Damerau v. FPH Properties, LLC, 160 So. 3d 135

Two Florida LLCs entered a joint venture with FPH Properties to buy renovate and sell three South Florida homes for profit; FPH fronted up to $500,000 per property and was to be repaid with interest, with profits shared after certain priorities, and Damerau guaranteed the obligations.
Property 3 was not sold; Damerau resided there as his homestead and the other two properties were sold with profits later misreported by appellants.
FPH later discovered falsified HUD settlement statements and final accounting, uncovering fraud designed to inflate 22nd Century’s share and charge FPH for unrelated expenses.
FPH amended its complaint to add punitive damages and fraud after discovery; the case spanned six years with extensive discovery and multiple motions, culminating in a bench trial in August 2012.
The trial court awarded FPH $631,969.50 in attorney’s fees (Oct 2010–Aug 2012) plus $6,240 in expert costs, finding fees warranted due to appellants’ discovery misconduct and fraudulent activity.
On appeal, the Fourth District affirmed the final judgment and the fee award, upholding the use of the lodestar method and related adjustments.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the attorney’s fee award was an abuse of discretion	Damerau argues fees include excessive/duplicative hours	FPH contends hours were necessary due to complexity and misconduct	No abuse; hours reasonably expended given complexity and misconduct
Whether accounting-related hours were correctly included	Accounting was not ordered, thus hours should be excluded	Accounting was intertwined with other claims and necessary to prove damages	Hours tied to common core of facts and interrelated claims were recoverable
Whether the fee award properly allocated time across intertwined claims	Time on non-prevailing counts should be excluded	Related claims and discovery efforts were inseparable from prevailing claims	Proper under Rowe; interrelated activities allowed recovery based on overall success and intertwined facts

Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (full compensatory fee when results are excellent)
Florida Patients' Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145 ( Fla. 1985) (lodestar method and reasonable hours; billing judgment)
Glantz & Glantz, P.A. v. Chinchilla, 17 So.3d 711 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (guides reduction of hours for duplicative work; fee opponent must specify hours)
Centex-Rooney Constr. Co. v. Martin Cnty., 725 So.2d 1255 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (rowe factors; assignment of hours to issues; reasonableness of fees)
River Bridge Corp. v. American Somax Ventures, 76 So.3d 986 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (intertwined claims; allocation of fees when issues are interrelated)
Durden v. Citicorp Trust Bank, FSB, 763 F. Supp. 2d 1299 (M.D. Fla. 2011) (intertwined work is compensable when claims share a common core of facts)
Effective Teleservices, Inc. v. Smith, 132 So.3d 335 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (claims are separate when they could support independent actions; otherwise fee may be shared)
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (reiterated; see above)
ACLU of Ga. v. Barnes, 168 F.3d 423 (11th Cir. 1999) (fee-shifting standards and specificity in billing disputes)