TRG Columbus Development Venture, Ltd. v. Sifontes
230 So. 3d 541
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Sifontes prevailed in a breach of contract action against TRG; this court affirmed the merits earlier.
- The trial court awarded attorney’s fees to Sifontes for both trial and appellate work; TRG appealed the fee award.
- This court previously affirmed the trial court’s determination of a $450 hourly rate and a 2.0 contingency multiplier for trial fees in Sifontes II, and awarded appellate fees entitlement, remanding to the trial court to fix the amount.
- After a September 2016 hearing, the trial court awarded $234,210.28 in appellate attorney’s fees, calculating 230.5 compensable hours at $450/hour and applying a 2.0 multiplier based on law-of-the-case reasoning.
- The trial court did not perform an independent Quanstrom analysis (market need, mitigation of risk, Rowe factors) when applying the multiplier to appellate fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a contingency multiplier applied to prior trial fees automatically applies to subsequent appellate-fee awards | Sifontes argued the previously affirmed 2.0 multiplier should apply to appellate hours (law of the case) | TRG argued the multiplier should not be automatically applied to appellate-only fee proceedings and required fresh Quanstrom findings | The court held the trial court erred to treat law of the case as binding for a multiplier on appellate-fee proceedings; reversed the multiplier application and remanded for proper Quanstrom analysis |
| Whether the trial court must consider Quanstrom factors before awarding a multiplier | Sifontes relied on prior appellate affirmation of the multiplier | TRG asserted the trial court needed to evaluate Quanstrom factors specifically for appellate-fee award | The court reiterated that a multiplier is the exception; trial courts must consider Quanstrom factors before applying a multiplier |
| Whether Stack and Kicklighter compel applying the same multiplier to appellate fees | Sifontes pointed to Stack and Kicklighter which affirmed applying the same multiplier to appellate hours | TRG argued Stack and Kicklighter are inapplicable because they concerned fees for direct appeals on the merits, not separate fee-only appeals | The court found Stack and Kicklighter inapplicable here because this appeal concerned fees-only proceedings after entitlement was already decided |
| Standard for presumption in lodestar reasonableness | Sifontes urged deference to prior lodestar/multiplier findings | TRG urged presumption that lodestar is reasonable absent exceptional Quanstrom showings | The court reiterated the strong presumption that the lodestar is reasonable and that multipliers are granted only in rare, exceptional circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Alvarez, 175 So. 3d 352 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (lodestar presumptively reasonable; multipliers are exceptional)
- Standard Guar. Ins. Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 1990) (three-factor test for contingency multipliers)
- Fla. Patient’s Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985) (factors relevant to fee awards: amount involved, results obtained, fee arrangement)
- Stack v. Lewis, 641 So. 2d 969 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (applied same multiplier to appellate and trial hours on direct appeal)
- Board of Trustees of the Jacksonville Police & Fire Fund v. Kicklighter, 122 So. 3d 510 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (relied on Stack to apply multiplier to appellate fees)
- TRG Columbus Dev. Venture, LTD. v. Sifontes (Sifontes II), 163 So. 3d 548 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (affirmed trial court’s rate and 2.0 multiplier for trial fees; awarded appellate-fee entitlement)