Background
Susan Deppert and Columbus574, LLC (managed by Dr. Megan Davis) entered into a residential sales contract for a home in St. Lucie County. When Columbus574 failed to perform, Deppert sued for specific performance. The trial court granted her request, ordering the property transferred. Following appeals and remand, Columbus574 transferred the residence to Deppert.
Deppert then moved for supplemental damages and attorney’s fees as the prevailing party. The trial court awarded $138,850.32 in supplemental damages (including mortgage interest, rents, property insurance, closing costs, and prorated taxes) plus $320,620.00 in attorney’s fees using a 2.0 contingency fee multiplier. Columbus574 appealed, raising three issues about the damages and fee award.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court reversed all three components of the trial court’s award. First, the contingency fee multiplier was improper because Deppert’s counsel testified he never agreed to a contingency arrangement and did not expect the case to become litigation. Under Florida law, a contingency multiplier requires either an actual contingency fee agreement or evidence that the multiplier was necessary to obtain competent counsel. Neither existed here, particularly given the 2023 amendments to section 57.104(2) establishing a “strong presumption” that a lodestar fee is sufficient except in rare circumstances.
Second, the trial court erred in awarding mortgage interest as supplemental damages. Deppert never secured a mortgage for the purchase, so she incurred no mortgage interest expense. Florida law limits specific performance damages to those returning the parties to their status quo at breach—actual, out-of-pocket losses. Since Deppert paid no mortgage interest, she could not recover it.
Third, the appellate court reversed the post-judgment interest award from the date of the non-final order because it could not determine whether the trial court intended this as pre-judgment or post-judgment interest. The parties agreed post-judgment interest on the non-final order was improper, but the record was unclear. The court remanded for clarification.
Key Takeaways
- Contingency fee multipliers in specific performance cases require proof of an actual contingency fee agreement or necessity for obtaining counsel—counsel’s subjective expectation of case difficulty is insufficient.
- Supplemental damages in specific performance are limited to actual out-of-pocket losses; speculative or hypothetical expenses cannot be recovered.
- Trial courts must distinguish clearly between pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, particularly where non-final orders are involved.
- The 2023 Florida amendments created a heightened bar for fee multipliers, establishing a strong presumption that lodestar fees are reasonable absent rare and exceptional circumstances.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies significant limits on attorney fee awards in specific performance cases. Defense counsel should ensure trial courts do not apply contingency multipliers without explicit contingency agreements and competent evidence of need. The ruling reinforces that supplemental damages must be grounded in actual economic loss, not theoretical harm or damages the prevailing party avoided through litigation success.
The decision also demonstrates heightened appellate scrutiny of fee awards following Florida’s 2023 statutory amendments. Trial courts now bear a clear burden to justify departures from lodestar fees with specific findings about rare and exceptional circumstances. For litigants recovering specific performance, this decision may reduce ultimate fee recovery despite victory on the merits.