Court Opinion

ID: 9835977
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 02:51:15.664409+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:11.219181
License: Public Domain

COHEN, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur with the majority’s decision to reverse the award of total.costs. I also agree with the majority’s framing of the issue—it should be the most exceptional of cases that merit the use of a multiplier.3 I am forced to dissent, however, because of the standard of review in this case. As the majority notes, the trial court’s application of a multiplier to an attorney’s fee award is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Holiday v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins., 864 So.2d 1215, 1218 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). The trial court conducted an extensive evi-dentiary hearing on the fee issue and determined that a multiplier was appropriate. I cannot conclude that the trial court’s decision constituted an abuse of discretion; thus, I would affirm the use of a multiplier. I respectfully dissent on this issue but concur with the majority opinion in all other respects.

. In fact, I joined in the Federated decision cited by the majority because the record in that case did not support the use of a multiplier.