Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A. v. Law Offices of Parker
160 So. 3d 955
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2015Background
- Trial Attorneys (three PA firms) handled a wrongful-death/medical-malpractice/product-liability trial that resulted in a $13,338,606 jury verdict; two defendants remained liable after appeals and paid judgment minus a court-ordered setoff.
- Trial Attorneys contracted with Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A. (an appellate-specialty firm) under a "Trial Support Agreement": hourly fees plus a contingency fee clause providing 1.5% if the case is settled before post-trial motions, and 2.5% if the case is "settled" after Burlington was asked by Jacobs & Goodman (one Trial Attorney member, via Joe Taraska) to prepare or respond to a motion for new trial.
- The Agreement expressly excluded appellate services (to be covered by a separate agreement). Burlington performed the requested trial‑support work in preparation for post‑trial motions.
- After this court’s opinion (affirming except for a setoff), the two remaining defendants paid the adjusted judgment and obtained satisfactions of judgment without returning to the trial court to enter a corrected judgment.
- Dispute: whether the word "settled" in the 2.5% clause requires a voluntary settlement agreement (Trial Attorneys’ position) or includes resolution by payment/satisfaction of judgment after final appellate decision (Burlington’s position).
- Trial court held for Trial Attorneys (interpreting "settled" as a voluntary settlement) and awarded them the disputed fee plus prejudgment interest; Burlington appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of "settled" for 2.5% fee entitlement | "Settled" means a voluntary settlement agreement ending the lawsuit; no settlement here, so Burlington not entitled to 2.5% | "Settled" means resolved/paid or satisfied (including payment after final decision); defendants paid judgment, so Burlington entitled to 2.5% | Court held "settled" means resolved by final decision/payment/satisfaction of judgment; Burlington entitled to the 2.5% fee |
| Breach of contract (did Burlington materially breach by taking its interpretation) | Trial Attorneys: Burlington breached by asserting its interpretation and withholding fee | Burlington: no material breach; it performed obligations and an arguable contract interpretation is not a material breach | Court held Burlington did not materially breach; trial court erred to find breach; judgment reversed and remanded to award Burlington fee plus prejudgment interest |
Key Cases Cited
- James v. Gulf Life Ins. Co., 66 So.2d 62 (Fla. 1953) (contract interpretation favors sensible meaning and against absurd results)
- Horizons A Far, LLC v. Plaza N 15, LLC, 114 So.3d 992 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (rules of contract interpretation)
- Kipp v. Kipp, 844 So.2d 691 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (party intent governs contract construction)
- Beans v. Chohonis, 740 So.2d 65 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (use of dictionaries to ascertain plain meaning)
- Specialized Mach. Transp., Inc. v. Westphal, 872 So.2d 424 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (avoid interpretations producing absurd results)
- Covelli Family, L.P. v. ABG5, L.L.C., 977 So.2d 749 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (material breach standard)
- Murciano v. Garcia, 958 So.2d 423 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (elements required to prove breach of contract)
- Janssen Pharm. Prods., L.P. v. Hodgemire, 49 So.3d 767 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (prior appeal resolving issues and ordering setoff)
- Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. Percefull, 653 So.2d 389 (Fla.) (prejudgment interest entitlement acknowledged on appeal win)