Trial Practices, Inc. v. Hahn Loester & Parks, LLP
228 So. 3d 1184
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- TPI contracted in 2005 to provide trial support to attorney Jack Antaramian for a percentage fee; after the underlying case settled, Antaramian refused to pay and TPI sued for breach.
- A jury returned verdict for Antaramian; TPI’s appeal failed. Antaramian then sought prevailing-party attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest under the Consulting Agreement.
- The trial court awarded fees and costs totaling about $2,004,432.58 and prejudgment interest of $462,709.81 (total $2,467,142.39), but disallowed some personal office overhead.
- Key contested items: (1) fees for litigating the amount of fees; (2) payments to attorney fact witnesses (TPI argued §92.142 barred more than $5/day); (3) whether cost awards included Antaramian’s office overhead and attorneys’ overhead; and (4) calculation/start date for prejudgment interest.
- The Second District affirmed most rulings but reversed and remanded (a) the $317,873.64 cost award because the trial court failed to itemize which costs were allowed (creating ambiguity whether disallowed office overhead was included), and (b) the prejudgment interest award, because interest should run from when prevailing-party entitlement was fixed and the calculation may have included disallowed overhead.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (TPI) | Defendant's Argument (Antaramian/Hahn) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Recoverability of attorneys’ fees/costs for litigating the amount of fees | Such fees are not recoverable (relying on cases addressing statutory fee awards). | The Consulting Agreement’s broad fee-shifting clause covers fees/costs incurred litigating entitlement and amount of fees. | Fee-shifting under the contract is broad; trial court did not err in awarding fees/costs for litigating fee amount. |
| 2) Payment to attorney fact witnesses and recoverability | Payments in excess of statutory witness compensation (§92.142) are improper and should bar recovery; such payments were unforeseeable under the contract. | Rule 4-3.4(b) permits reasonable compensation for a witness’s time preparing/attending proceedings; payments here were for assistance with case/discovery and were recoverable. | Court allowed recovery for payments that represented reasonable compensation for assistance with case and discovery preparation; certified to Fla. Supreme Court whether rule permits payment for that assistance. |
| 3) Inclusion of office/attorney overhead in costs | Cost awards improperly include nontaxable office overhead and other routine overhead items. | The Consulting Agreement permits recovery of “all expenses of any nature,” so attorneys’ litigation-related overhead is recoverable; Antaramian’s personal office overhead is not. | Attorneys’ action-related overhead may be recovered under the contract; trial court erred by failing to itemize the $317,873.64 cost award (possible inclusion of disallowed office overhead) — reverse and remand for itemization. |
| 4) Prejudgment interest: accrual date and calculation | Interest should not run from dates fees/costs were incurred; if award included disallowed overhead, interest calculation is incorrect. | Argued fees/costs were elements of damages; interest should run from when incurred. | Interest accrues only from the date prevailing-party entitlement is fixed; trial court erred by running interest from dates incurred and by relying on a spreadsheet that may have included disallowed overhead — reverse and remand to recalculate from the date entitlement was fixed and to exclude interest on any disallowed items. |
Key Cases Cited
- State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Palma, 629 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 1993) (statutory fee awards generally do not include fees to litigate amount of fees)
- Wight v. Wight, 880 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (same principle applied by this court)
- Waverly at Las Olas Condominium Ass'n v. Waverly Las Olas, LLC, 88 So. 3d 386 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (contractual fee provisions may cover fees spent litigating fee amount where language is broad)
- Butler v. Yusem, 3 So. 3d 1185 (Fla. 2009) (prevailing-party contractual fees are not damages until entitlement is fixed)
- Northbrook Life Ins. Co. v. Clark, 590 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (trial court should consider/itemize each cost when ruling on taxation of costs)
- Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Reddick, 954 So. 2d 723 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (failure to itemize costs impedes appellate review and can require reversal)
- In re Amendments to Uniform Guidelines for Taxation of Costs, 915 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 2005) (guidelines advisory; contract can permit broader cost recovery)