Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; May 9, 1989; Florida; State Appellate Court
Miami National Bank appeals a trial court order denying its claims against Ricardo Nunez while holding the bank liable for breach of contract and fraud concerning Mr. Nunez, and for malicious prosecution against his wife, Delores Nunez. The appellate court affirms the trial court's findings but remands the issue of compensatory damages awarded to Mrs. Nunez, as there was no legal basis for part of that award. The bank had sued Mrs. Nunez despite knowing she was not a guarantor of the corporate debt and had revoked any personal guaranty related to her husband's debt. The damages awarded to Mrs. Nunez included compensation for mental suffering due to malicious prosecution and for services rendered by Mr. Nunez in her defense. However, the court questioned the legitimacy of compensating for Mr. Nunez's assistance in litigation preparation, noting a lack of precedent for such damages. Mr. Nunez’s claims for time spent preparing for the case were deemed self-serving and unsupported by evidence, leading the court to reject the unspecified component of the damages related to his involvement.
Lack of documentation does not preclude compensation; however, inadequate documentation may lead to a reduction in compensable hours. In a malicious prosecution case, a claimant may be entitled to expert fee compensation for employing a banking expert, provided the expert's services were necessary. Nonetheless, hours spent by a spouse in a personal capacity, rather than in a professional capacity, should not be compensated. Mrs. Nunez claimed 400 hours at a rate of $150 per hour for her husband’s assistance. Mr. Nunez based this rate on his earnings as a health care advisor and real estate salesman, without establishing fees as a banking expert. The trial court initially accepted his sworn testimony on hours and valuation, despite objections from Miami National Bank, which denied the existence of malicious prosecution and contested the fee’s appropriateness without presenting expert testimony. The ruling concluded it was an abuse of discretion to award compensation for Mr. Nunez's spousal services. The court affirmed parts of the trial court's decision but reversed the award of compensatory damages to Mrs. Nunez, remanding for a new trial on that issue. Upon rehearing, the court modified its prior opinion, reducing the judgment by $60,000, corresponding to Mr. Nunez's claimed expert services, which the plaintiff agreed to. The judgment was affirmed except for the remittitur. It was noted that the compensatory award could be reversed without affecting the punitive award given to Mrs. Nunez. Additionally, Mr. Nunez acknowledged that some hours billed were for securing loans for his own litigation, unrelated to the malicious prosecution case.
