The Third DCA affirmed the award of contractual attorney’s fees to a prevailing counterclaimant under section 57.105(7)’s reciprocity provision, including fees for defending against a prejudgment writ of garnishment, but reversed the application of a 1.5 contingency risk multiplier as unsupported by competent substantial evidence.
The Third DCA reversed a final judgment in a partition action that assigned all attorney’s fees to one co-tenant, holding that section 64.081 requires fees to be apportioned between parties in proportion to their interests in the partitioned property.
The Fourth DCA reversed the denial of an attorney’s petition for fees under section 744.108(1), holding that the statute is not limited to attorneys who represent the ward but extends to attorneys who render services that benefit the ward, including those who petition for appointment of an emergency temporary guardian.
The Fourth DCA held that a proposal for settlement served under section 768.79 was ineffective where the parties’ contract contained a New York choice-of-law provision that had not yet been waived at the time the proposal was served, even though the offeree later waived the provision.
The Eighth District affirmed summary judgment in favor of Reminger Co. in a breach-of-contract action to collect unpaid legal fees, holding that the pro se defendant’s failure to comply with appellate briefing rules and support his assignments of error with argument and authority was fatal.
The Ninth District affirmed most aspects of a divorce decree but reversed the trial court’s property-division offset, finding that the court improperly double-counted certain expenses and failed to credit the husband for overpayments made under the temporary orders.
The Second District affirmed summary judgment for an equipment rental company on breach of contract and upheld an award of attorney fees, holding that an equipment rental agreement is not a ‘contract of indebtedness’ under R.C. 1319.02.
The Ninth District affirmed sanctions under R.C. 2323.51 against homebuyers and their attorney for filing a frivolous motion to vacate an arbitration award using a ‘manifest disregard of the law’ standard that Ohio no longer recognizes.