Westaway v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
230 So. 3d 505
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Wells Fargo filed a foreclosure against Debra Westaway in 2009; after five years, Westaway obtained an involuntary dismissal and prevailed on appeal.
- Westaway moved for attorneys' fees, costs, and a contingency risk multiplier after prevailing.
- At the fee hearing, Wells Fargo was not represented; Westaway presented an expert who testified $325/hour was reasonable for her counsel.
- The presiding judge (different from the entitlement judge) expressed skepticism that attorneys with two years' experience could charge $325/hour.
- The trial court reduced the hourly rates to $200 (Aug 2010–Dec 2012) and $250 (Jan 2013–end), reduced some paralegal time, and denied a multiplier; Westaway appealed the rate reduction and other adjustments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by reducing counsel's requested hourly rate. | Westaway argued the requested $325/hr was supported by expert testimony and the Rowe factors; court should have adopted it. | Wells Fargo did not contest at hearing (was unrepresented); court relied on its own view of appropriate rates by years of experience. | Reversed: court abused discretion by reducing rate without applying or making findings on Rowe factors; remanded to award $325/hr and recalculate lodestar. |
| Whether the court properly reduced billed paralegal time. | Westaway contended the paralegal time was legitimate and supported by billing records. | Court found some secretarial tasks had been billed as paralegal and reduced time. | Affirmed in part: appellate court did not disturb reductions to paralegal time. |
| Whether a contingency risk multiplier was warranted. | Westaway sought a multiplier due to risk and results obtained. | Court denied multiplier as unwarranted in this case. | Affirmed: denial of multiplier upheld. |
| Whether the trial court made adequate findings referencing Rowe factors. | Westaway argued specific findings on Rowe factors were required to support rate reductions. | Trial court relied primarily on experience-level benchmarks and its own judgment. | Held that the judgment lacked Rowe-factor findings to justify rate cut; failure to provide competent substantial evidence required reversal as to rate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985) (establishes factors for evaluating reasonable attorney fees)
- Standard Guar. Ins. Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 1990) (modifies aspects of Rowe analysis)
- Raza v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co., 100 So. 3d 121 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (standard of appellate review for fee awards; competent substantial evidence requirement)
- DiStefano Constr., Inc. v. Fid. & Deposit Co. of Md., 597 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 1992) (abuse of discretion standard for fee determinations)
- Baratta v. Valley Oak Homeowners' Ass'n at the Vineyards, Inc., 928 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (trial courts must make specific findings on reasonable rate, hours, and adjustments)
- D'Alusio v. Gould & Lamb, LLC, 36 So. 3d 842 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (trial judges may use legal experience and common sense but record must support fee award)
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Westaway, 182 So. 3d 653 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (prior appeal affirming involuntary dismissal in underlying foreclosure)