Chandler v. KCCS, Inc.
Summary of the case Chandler v. KCCS, Inc.
Joel Chandler appealed a final order awarding fees to KCCS, Inc. under section 57.105(1), Florida Statutes. The court affirmed the decision to award sanctions but reversed the amount due to insufficient evidence supporting the fee award. The case was remanded for further proceedings to determine the proper amount of fees.
Key Issues of the case Chandler v. KCCS, Inc.
- Award of fees under section 57.105(1)
- Insufficient evidence for fee amount
Key Facts of the case Chandler v. KCCS, Inc.
- Chandler appealed the fee award to KCCS, Inc.
- Evidence presented was insufficient to support the fee amount.
Decision of the case Chandler v. KCCS, Inc.
Reversed and remanded.
Opinions
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
JOEL EDWARD CHANDLER, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D16-3091 ) KCCS, INC., ) ) Appellee. ) )
Opinion filed August 30, 2017.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County; John M. Radabaugh, Judge.
Nathan A. Carney of Carney Law Firm, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.
Brant Hargrove, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Joel Chandler appeals from a final order awarding KCCS, Inc., fees
pursuant to section 57.105(1), Florida Statutes (2016). We affirm the decision to award
sanctions but reverse as to the amount awarded. Although there was evidence
presented at the evidentiary hearing as to the hourly rate and the reasonableness of the
fees, the only evidence detailing the work actually completed consisted of an affidavit
and related documents that were neither introduced into evidence nor stipulated to at the hearing. The evidence was thus insufficient to support the award. See Saussy v.
Saussy, 560 So. 2d 1385, 1386 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) ("To support a fee award, there
must be the following: (1) evidence detailing the services performed and (2) expert
testimony as to the reasonableness of the fee." (citing Nivens v. Nivens, 312 So. 2d 201
(Fla. 2d DCA 1975))); Diwakar v. Montecito Palm Beach Condo. Ass'n, 143 So. 3d 958,
960 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) ("Competent evidence includes invoices, records and other
information detailing the services provided as well as the testimony from the attorney in
support of the fee." (quoting Brewer v. Solovsky, 945 So. 2d 610, 611 (Fla. 4th DCA
2006))). Because there was some competent evidence presented to support the award,
we remand for further proceedings as to the proper amount of fees. See Colson v.
State Farm Bank, F.S.B., 183 So. 3d 1038, 1040 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) ("[W]here the
record includes some evidence supporting the fee . . . award, this court may remand for
further proceedings."); Morton v. Heathcock, 913 So. 2d 662, 670 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)
(reversing fee award because record did “not include the essential evidentiary support”
required but remanding for additional hearing because record contained "some
competent substantial evidence to support a fee award"); see also Xhelaj v. McCormick
105, LLC, 42 Fla. L. Weekly D1286 (Fla. 2d DCA June 2, 2017).
Reversed and remanded.
VILLANTI, SLEET, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
-2-