Genser v. Reef Condominium Ass'n
100 So. 3d 760
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- Gensers challenged an award of attorney’s fees and costs won by Reef Condominium Association for enforcing condo rules restricting a vestibule enclosure.
- Trial court awarded specific hours at $295, $250, and $125 hourly rates, plus expert and costs, and ordered 6% interest from entitlement date January 12, 2011.
- Court failed to compute the lodestar total amount (hours times rates) and did not finalize a single judgment amount before addressing interest.
- Gensers argued the court erred by not totaling the sums and by applying 6% pre-judgment interest improperly.
- Court relied on pre-2011 law for pre-judgment interest and adhered to the entitlement date as the accrual start, with post-judgment interest to be set by the Chief Financial Officer’s rate.
- Court reversed and remanded to calculate the lodestar and set judgment amounts with appropriate interest terms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly calculated attorney’s fees using lodestar. | Gensers contend lodestar amount was not computed. | Reef argues the court’s determinations on hours and rates were sufficient. | Remanded for lodestar calculation; single fee amount to be entered. |
| Whether pre-judgment interest on fees was correctly calculated and accrual started. | Gensers claim interest calculation and accrual date were correct as 6%. | Court fixed entitlement date and applied 6% pre-judgment; post-judgment rate to follow. | Pre-judgment interest at 6% proper from entitlement; remand for proper lodestar; post-judgment rate to be CFO-set rate. |
| Whether post-judgment interest rate should adjust with CFO rate after judgment. | Not specified separately by Gensers. | Interest should follow CFO rate after judgment. | Post-judgment interest to accrue at CFO rate per 55.03 until paid. |
Key Cases Cited
- Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145 (Fla. 1985) (adopts lodestar method for attorney’s fee calculations)
- Quality Engineered Installation, Inc. v. Higley South, Inc., 670 So.2d 929 (Fla. 1996) (pre-judgment interest on attorney’s fees under entitlement rule)
- Peavy v. Dyer, 605 So.2d 1330 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992) (prejudgment interest becomes part of one total sum due)
- Argonaut Ins. Co. v. May Plumbing Co., 474 So.2d 212 (Fla. 1985) (judgment-interest rate applicable to calculation of pre-judgment interest under 55.03)
- Applestein v. Simons, 586 So.2d 441 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (unsatisfied final judgments may have changing interest rates per statute)