- Court
- Florida Third District Court of Appeal
- Case Number
- 3D2025-0373
- Date Filed
- May 27, 2026
- Judge
- Scales, C.J.
- Disposition
- Affirmed in part, reversed in part
Background
Alan Kent Little contracted with Bath & Kitchen Boutique, LLC (BKB) to design and renovate his master bathroom. When BKB’s work failed to pass final inspection by the deadline in a Contract Amendment, Little sued for breach of contract seeking $67,000 in liquidated damages ($1,000/day for 67 days of delay). BKB counterclaimed, and both parties alleged entitlement to attorney’s fees based on the Contract Amendment’s unilateral fee provision, which BKB argued was made reciprocal by section 57.105(7), Florida Statutes.
During the litigation, Little obtained a prejudgment writ of garnishment and garnished BKB’s bank accounts. BKB challenged the garnishment and prevailed on certiorari (Bath & Kitchen Boutique, LLC v. Little, 390 So. 3d 44 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)). The parties ultimately settled the underlying claims but left the attorney’s fees dispute for the trial court to resolve. The trial court awarded BKB contractual attorney’s fees (made reciprocal by section 57.105(7)), including fees for defending the garnishment, and applied a 1.5 contingency risk multiplier.
Holding
The Third DCA affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court affirmed: (1) the award of contractual attorney’s fees to BKB under section 57.105(7)’s reciprocity provision for time spent litigating the breach of contract claims; (2) the award of fees for legal work related to the prejudgment writ of garnishment, finding that section 57.105(7)’s reciprocity provision applied; and (3) the award of costs.
However, the court reversed the trial court’s application of a 1.5 contingency risk multiplier because it was not supported by competent, substantial evidence. Both the fee award and the multiplier are reviewed for abuse of discretion and must be supported by competent, substantial evidence.
Key Takeaways
- Section 57.105(7)’s reciprocity provision makes a unilateral contractual fee provision bilateral, allowing the non-drafting party to recover fees when they prevail.
- Attorney’s fees for defending against a prejudgment writ of garnishment may be recoverable under the reciprocity provision when the writ relates to contract enforcement.
- A contingency risk multiplier must be supported by competent, substantial evidence; it cannot be applied without an adequate evidentiary foundation.
- Fee awards and multiplier applications are reviewed for abuse of discretion.
Why It Matters
This case illustrates two important points for Florida litigators. First, section 57.105(7)’s reach extends beyond the core contract claims to encompass ancillary proceedings — like garnishment — that arise from contract enforcement efforts. Second, while Florida law permits contingency risk multipliers in fee awards, trial courts must support the multiplier with evidence in the record. The mere fact that a case involved complex litigation or that counsel assumed risk is insufficient without evidentiary support. Practitioners seeking multipliers must build the evidentiary record at the fee hearing rather than relying on the trial court’s general familiarity with the case.