Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Korman v. Pond Apple Maintenance Ass'n
Citations: 607 So. 2d 489; 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 11340; 1992 WL 322978Docket: No. 91-3261
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; November 3, 1992; Florida; State Appellate Court
John and Pamela Korman appealed a final judgment that awarded attorney's fees to Pond Apple Maintenance Association, Inc. (the Association) in a case concerning the enforcement of condominium rules regarding dog leashing. The Kormans owned a home in the Vista Verde community, where complaints arose about Mr. Korman's dog being walked without a leash in common areas and causing disturbances in their fenced yard. The Association filed for an injunction to prevent the Kormans from walking the dog without a leash and to ensure better control of the dog in their yard. The trial court ruled in favor of the Association, granting the injunction against walking the dog on common property without a leash while denying further injunction regarding the dog’s behavior within the Korman's fenced yard, as evidence showed the situation had improved. The court awarded attorney's fees to the Association as the prevailing party, but denied Mrs. Korman's request for fees. The Kormans argued that the condominium documents did not require dogs to be leashed, but the court found that the Association had adopted local leash laws applicable to common areas. In a cross-appeal, the Association contested the attorney's fees awarded, claiming it was only half of what expert testimony deemed reasonable and that the trial court failed to provide specific findings to support this award. The appellate court agreed that the trial court erred by not detailing how it arrived at the fee amount but rejected the notion that the fee was improper solely because it was lower than the expert's recommendation. The court emphasized that the trial judge has broad discretion in determining attorney's fees but should provide explanations when deviating from expert opinions. The appellate court affirmed the main appeal, reversing the cross-appeal, and remanded the case for the trial court to clarify its reasoning behind the attorney's fees awarded, following the guidelines set forth in Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Rowe. Judges Dell and Owen concurred with the decision.