i. Facts Name of the case and its parties: Leo John Guerin, Jr. v. Countryside North Community Association, Inc.. The appellant is Leo John Guerin, Jr., and the appellee is Countryside North Community Association, Inc.. What happened factually and procedurally: A final judgment of foreclosure was rendered by the County Court for Pinellas County in favor of the Association, and Guerin appealed the decision. The trial court’s final judgment included an award of $2,790.02) did not match the sum of the components listed in paragraph 9 ($2,734.82).
The judgment: The District Court of Appeal affirmed the final judgment in part, reversed it in part, and remanded the case with instructions for the trial court to address the fees and correct the calculation error.
ii. Issues: Is a final judgment awarding attorneys’ fees facially erroneous if it lacks specific findings regarding the reasonable hourly rate and the number of hours reasonably expended by counsel?
iii. Holding Yes. A trial court must make specific written findings regarding a counsel’s reasonable hourly rate and the number of hours reasonably expended when awarding attorneys’ fees. The absence of these required findings renders a written order fundamentally erroneous on its face.
iv. Rationale The court’s decision was based on the precedent established in Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, which requires specific factual findings on hourly rates and hours expended to justify an award of attorneys’ fees. Because the trial court failed to include these findings for the prior counsel’s $265.02 fee award, the judgment was facially erroneous. Relying on past cases like Harris v. McKinney and R.M.A. v. J.A.S., the court noted that reversal is mandatory unless the trial court makes these specific written findings regarding the Rowe factors. Therefore, the appellate court reversed that specific, limited portion of the judgment and remanded it with instructions for the trial court to make the required finding.
Read the case here: https://flcourts-media.flcourts.gov/content/download/860855/opinion/Opinion_22-2004.pdf
The case is available in PDF here: