A Florida appeals court has reversed a lower court's decision that reduced the attorney's fees and costs awarded to a landlord in a breach of contract case against her former tenants. The District Court of Appeal of Florida ruled on June 3, 2026, in the case of Stephanie Sackett v. David Tubero and Paula Tubero, docket number 4D2025-1712. The ruling emphasizes the importance of fair compensation for legal representation in landlord-tenant disputes.
The case began when landlord Stephanie Sackett filed a lawsuit against tenants David and Paula Tubero, alleging that they caused damage to her rental property that exceeded their security deposit. Sackett won the case, securing a judgment of $10,189.08 and $550 in court costs, totaling $10,739.08. Following this, she sought to recover attorney's fees and additional costs incurred during the legal proceedings.
Sackett's attorneys requested a total of $20,373.75 in fees and costs, which included $7,455 for attorney Lisa Boswell and $12,918.75 for attorney Clamens. The trial court, however, reduced the hourly rates for both attorneys and the number of hours billed, resulting in a total fee award of only $3,412.50 and $1,375 in costs. Sackett appealed the trial court's decision, arguing that the reductions were arbitrary and unjustified.
The appeals court found that the trial court had erred in its handling of the attorney's fees and costs. The court noted that the trial judge had a predisposition against awarding fees that exceeded the judgment amount, stating that “reasonable attorney’s fees... is not going to equal or go larger than the Final Judgment.” This predisposition led to an ultimatum where the attorneys were pressured to reduce their fee requests or risk losing the case altogether.
The court ruled, "The trial court is bound to apply the lodestar method in determining fees, not its own sense of reasonableness or what the relationship of the award to the underlying judgment amount should be." This method requires the court to establish a reasonable hourly rate and the number of hours reasonably expended on the case.
The appeals court also criticized the trial court for reducing the attorneys' hourly rates based solely on its independent review of the attorneys' profiles on the Florida Bar website, without sufficient justification. The court emphasized that the trial court's rationale for reducing the hours billed was not adequately explained, stating that the reductions were arbitrary and lacked a legal basis.
In addition to the attorney's fees, the appeals court addressed the issue of costs. Sackett had requested a total of $4,928.34 in court costs but was awarded only $1,375. The court found that the trial court had erred in failing to award the remaining $2,733.71 of taxable court costs related to filing fees, service of process, and court reporting. The appeals court noted, "a trial court has no discretion to deny the party obtaining judgment its lawful costs," and therefore reversed the cost award as well.
The ruling has significant implications for landlords and tenants in Florida. It reinforces the principle that landlords are entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees and costs when they prevail in legal disputes with tenants. This case highlights the importance of adhering to established methods for calculating attorney's fees and the need for trial courts to provide clear justifications for any reductions.
Going forward, this ruling may influence how courts handle attorney's fees in similar landlord-tenant disputes, ensuring that landlords are compensated fairly for legal representation. It also serves as a reminder for trial courts to remain impartial and avoid imposing arbitrary limits on fee awards based on personal beliefs about what constitutes a reasonable amount.
The appeals court concluded by reversing the lower court's decisions regarding both attorney's fees and costs, remanding the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. The court suggested that a new judge preside over the attorneys' motion for fees and costs to ensure an impartial review.
Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether the case could be appealed further or if there are related cases pending. However, the ruling emphasizes the importance of fair legal compensation in landlord-tenant disputes and sets a precedent for future cases.