TRG Columbus Development Venture, Ltd. v. Sifontes, 163 So. 3d 548

In 2004 Sifontes entered a pre-construction contract to buy a condo from TRG, paid a $60,980 (20%) deposit, and the contract required substantial completion within two years; parties later executed an extension agreement.
After the unit was finished, Sifontes refused to close and sued TRG seeking return of his deposit, arguing the extension agreement was void; the trial court ruled for Sifontes and awarded him fees to be determined.
This court previously affirmed the underlying judgment in favor of Sifontes.
At an evidentiary hearing on fees the trial court found 297.40 hours reasonably expended and set a reasonable hourly rate of $400, yielding a lodestar of $118,960.
Because counsel had a contingency-fee agreement, the court considered and applied a 2.0 multiplier, doubling the lodestar and awarding $237,920.
TRG appealed both the $400 hourly rate (arguing the contract capped recoverable hourly rate at $350) and the grant of a contingency multiplier.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the contingency agreement contained an alternate fee-recovery clause allowing the court to award an hourly rate above $350	Contract language and testimony show the contract’s “higher…determined…pursuant to any…decisional authority” clause allows the court to set a reasonable rate above $350	The contract’s $350/hour reference is a fixed contractual cap; no alternate recovery clause exists, so court cannot award more than $350	Court construed the contract as containing an alternate fee-recovery clause and affirmed a $400 hourly rate
Whether a contingency-fee multiplier was permissible and supported by the record	Counsel testified and presented evidence that competent counsel willing to try deposit-recovery cases on contingency were rare; market conditions justified a multiplier	TRG argued no evidence showed the market required a multiplier; thus multiplier was inappropriate	Court applied Quanstrom factors, found competent substantial evidence (including market scarcity) and affirmed a 2.0 multiplier

First Baptist Church of Cape Coral, Fla., Inc. v. Compass Constr., Inc., 115 So. 3d 978 (Fla. 2013) (contingency contract may permit alternative fee recovery allowing court to set reasonable fee)
Standard Guar. Ins. Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 1990) (sets factors for awarding contingency multipliers)
Fla. Patient’s Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985) (lodestar calculation and fee considerations)
Aristech Acrylics, LLC v. Lars, LLC, 116 So. 3d 542 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (contract construed as whole to effect parties’ intent)
Moore v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 916 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (court may not interpret contract to render language meaningless)
Sunshine State Ins. Co. v. Davide, 117 So. 3d 1142 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (appellate review of multiplier awards is abuse-of-discretion)
TRG Columbus Dev. Venture, Ltd. v. Sifontes, 138 So. 3d 458 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (prior affirmance of underlying judgment)