UMANA v. MRG GLAZING CONTRACTORS INC (2026)

Claudia Umana challenges an award of attorney's fees in a final judgment of foreclosure of a construction lien, contending among other things that the amount of fees requested and the use of a contingency fee multiplier is not supported by competent, substantial evidence. “This Court reviews an award of attorney's fees for abuse of discretion. A trial court's determination of whether claims are inextricably intertwined is a question of law reviewed de novo.” Aquastar Holdings LLC v. Avant Design Grp., Inc., 421 So. 3d 767, 770 n.3 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025) (quoting Shelly L. Hall, M.D., P.A. v. White, 97 So. 3d 907, 909 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)). Because Umana has not furnished this court with a transcript of the fee hearing, we affirm. See Val v. Gentera Ctr. for Plastic Surgery, LLC, 419 So. 3d 793 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025); Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) (burden is on appellant to demonstrate error and “[e]ven when based on erroneous reasoning, a conclusion or decision of a trial court will generally be affirmed if the evidence or an alternative theory supports it”).

Affirmed.

PER CURIAM.