Charles Ruffenach v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for Ameriquest Mortgage Securities Inc., Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates Series 2005-R8, Raymond Lozano, Alili Rihkrand, Islebrook at Meadow Woods Homeowners’ Association, Inc., Orange County, and CIT Financial, Inc.

Summary

The Florida Sixth District Court of Appeal reverses the trial court’s award of attorneys’ fees to Deutsche Bank in a foreclosure-related case while affirming the remainder of the final judgment without discussion. The court holds that a trial court need not always conduct an evidentiary hearing or receive expert testimony regarding the reasonableness of attorneys’ fees awarded under a statute, rule, or contract. Because the holding conflicts with decisions from Florida’s other district courts of appeal, the court certifies direct conflict to the Florida Supreme Court.

Holdings

1. A trial court need not always receive expert testimony before awarding attorneys’ fees pursuant to a statute, rule, or contractual provision authorizing such an award.
2. When there is no material factual dispute concerning a fee request other than the reasonableness of the attorneys’ hourly rates and the reasonableness of the hours expended, a trial court is not required to conduct an evidentiary hearing.
3. The trial court erred by awarding attorneys’ fees where Deutsche Bank did not submit records detailing the work performed by its attorneys.
4. The case should not be remanded for Deutsche Bank to retry its entitlement to attorneys’ fees or unspecified non-attorneys’ fees included in the “Recoverable Balance.”

Questions Presented

1. Whether a trial court must always conduct an evidentiary hearing before awarding attorneys’ fees under a statute, rule, or contract.
2. Whether a trial court must always receive expert testimony concerning the reasonableness of attorneys’ fees before making such an award.
3. Whether the fee award was supported by legally sufficient evidence when the prevailing party did not submit records detailing the work performed by its attorneys.
4. Whether the appellee was entitled to a second trial-court proceeding to prove attorneys’ fees or unspecified non-attorneys’ fees included in the judgment’s “Recoverable Balance.”

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded