(“Prejudgment interest may only be awarded on the amount actually stolen; it may not be awarded on the trebled amount.”). Appellants argue, and Rogers concedes, that the case should be remanded to the trial court for a properly-noticed evi-dentiary hearing on the reasonableness of the attorney’s fees Rogers incurred. Although section 772.11 permits an award of fees and costs incurred at trial and on appeal, the party against whom the fees are sought is entitled to proper notice and an opportunity to be heard at an evidentia-ry hearing. We reverse that part of the final judgment awarding damages under count I of the complaint and remand for en w dismissed, 778 So.2d 970 (Fla.2001), with Country Manors Ass'n, Inc. v. Master Antenna Sys., Inc., 534 So.2d 1187, 1195 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988) (<HOLDING>); and McArthur Dairy, Inc. v. Original Kielbs,
holding that plaintiff could recover both treble damages under state racketeering statute and punitive damages under fraud and breach of fiduciary duty claims because the statute provided that actions brought under it are remedial and not punitive and that civil remedies provided under it are supplemental and not mutually exclusive holding that a plaintiff is entitled to either statutory treble damages or punitive damages whichever is the greater holding that a plaintiff may receive both treble damages under rico and state law punitive damages for the same course of conduct holding treble damages under the civil theft statute are punitive recognizing that an award of treble damages for an antitrust violation and punitive damages for common law tortious interference with business relations based on same conduct would be duplicative holding that punitive and treble damages cannot both be awarded and indicating that a special jury verdict in this situation would be appropriate