Case Name: CITIBANK FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK, f/k/a Citicorp Savings of Florida, Appellant, v. Fred I. SANDEL and Rosalyn L. Sandel, his wife, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2000-03-01
Citations: 766 So. 2d 302
Docket Number: No. 4D99-0683
Parties: CITIBANK FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK, f/k/a Citicorp Savings of Florida, Appellant, v. Fred I. SANDEL and Rosalyn L. Sandel, his wife, Appellees.
Judges: TAYLOR, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 766
Pages: 302–305

Head Matter:
CITIBANK FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK, f/k/a Citicorp Savings of Florida, Appellant, v. Fred I. SANDEL and Rosalyn L. Sandel, his wife, Appellees.
No. 4D99-0683.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
March 1, 2000.
Steven Ellison of the Law Office of Broad and Cassel, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
James A. Bonfiglio, Boynton Beach, for appellees.

Opinion:
KLEIN, J.
Citibank appeals an order awarding attorney's fees in a federal truth-in-lending act case, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et. seq. (TILA). Citibank raises two issues: (1) whether the lodestar number should have been reduced because of issues on which the Sandels did not prevail; and (2) whether the hourly rate was excessive. We affirm those issues without discussion but write to explain why we are granting the Sandels' motion for attorney's fees on appeal.
Citibank opposes the Sandels' motion for attorney's fees on appeal, relying on State Farm, Fire & Casualty Co. v. Palma, 629 So.2d 830 (Fla.1993). In Palma, the Florida Supreme Court held, in a suit in which attorney's fees were awardable to an insured under section 627.428, Florida Statutes, that prevailing party attorney's fees are not recoverable where the only issue being litigated is the amount of attorney's fees. Our supreme court explained: "such work inures solely to the attorney's benefit and cannot be considered services rendered in procuring full payment of the judgment." In Palma the majority acknowledged:
We recognize that federal courts that have addressed the issue have not distinguished between entitlement to attorney's fees and the amount of attorney's fees, but instead permit fees for the entire time spent on the issue.... In awarding fees for litigating all issues relating to attorney's fees, the federal courts have noted that such awards comport with the purpose behind most statutory fee authorizations, namely to encourage attorneys to represent indigent clients.
Palma, 629 So.2d at 833. The three dissenting justices would have followed federal courts.
Because federal law controls the award of these fees authorized by 15 U.S.C. § 1640(a)(3), we are not bound by Palma. At least one federal court has awarded attorney's fees for services rendered on appeal on which the only issue was the amount of fees awarded in a TILA case. McGowan v. King, Inc., 661 F.2d 48 (5th Cir.1981). We conclude that under federal law the Sandels are entitled to attorney's fees for services rendered in defending this appeal and grant their motion.
TAYLOR, J., concurs.
FARMER, J., concurs with opinion.
. The Sandels' counsel suggests that the rationale underlying our supreme court's decision in Palma, that attorney's time spent litigating the amount of attorney's fees inures "solely to the attorney's benefit," Palma, 629 So.2d at 833, is questionable. He uses as an example this case, in which the trial court compensated him for seventy hours work for his efforts in the trial court. If he spent thirty hours defending this appeal and were not compensated under the rationale of Palma, he would not be paid for handling the appeal. He would then have a total of 100 hours in the case, but would only be compensated for seventy hours. This effectively reduces the hourly rate used by the trial court by thirty percent, and will make it more difficult for those in need of counsel to find representation. We think his point is well taken. See also Marguerite H. Davis & James C. Hauser, A Plea for Unifonnity, 64 Fla.B.J., Apr. 1990, 33 (advancing the position that Florida should follow the federal courts and allow recovery of fees for litigating both issues of entitlement and amount of attorney's fees).