SADIE LOVE AND CLYDE LOVE, HER HUSBAND, APPELLANTS,
v.
IRA S. JACOBSON, M.D., AND NORTH DADE HOSPITAL, INC., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Loves sued for medical malpractice but voluntarily dismissed their action on the trial date. The hospital sought and obtained attorney's fees under a statute allowing such fees when no justiciable issue exists. The appellate court reversed because the statute was not retroactive to actions filed before its effective date.
The statute does not apply retroactively. Because the right to recover attorney's fees under the statute did not exist prior to its enactment and represents a substantive right rather than a mere procedural mechanism, it cannot be applied retroactively to actions filed before June 15, 1978.
[1] A statute providing for the award of attorney's fees to a prevailing party when there is a complete absence of a justiciable issue of law or fact is substantive and does…
[2] A statute creating a new right to recover attorney's fees is not procedural and cannot be applied retroactively to actions commenced before its effective date.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Unless legislative intent to the contrary is disclosed, statutes operate prospectively.”
Establishes the foundational rule that statutes are prospective unless the legislature clearly intends retroactive application.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Loves filed a medical malpractice action against Dr. Jacobson and North Dade Hospital on January 18, 1977, regarding negligent treatment of a frac…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Statutory Retroactivity cases and more on FLexlaw
BASKIN, Judge.
We are asked by appellants Sadie Love and Clyde Love to consider the propriety of an order taxing attorney’s fees against them following dismissal of their medical malpractice action. The court found there was no justiciable issue of either law or fact. We reverse because Section 57.105, Florida Statutes (Supp.1978) did not become effective until approximately a year and a half after the commencement of the action and is not retroactive.
On January 18, 1977, the Loves sued North Dade Hospital and their doctor, Dr. Jacobson, for negligent treatment of a fractured arm. Because medical mediation proceedings had not yet terminated, the complaint was dismissed and later reinstated. The hospital filed a motion for summary judgment which was denied. On the date of trial, the Loves voluntarily dismissed their action. The hospital then sought attorney’s fees, and costs, and the trial court awarded $6,000 attorney’s fees. In response to a motion, the court entered a corrected order taxing attorney’s fees which included a finding that no justiciable issue of law or fact existed. This order was entered after the notice of appeal had been filed.
Section 57.105, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1978) provides:
Attorney’s Fee.-The court shall award a reasonable attorney’s fee to the prevailing party in any civil action in which the court finds that there was a complete absence of a justiciable issue of either law or fact raised by the losing party.
Prior to the effective date of that statute, June 15,1978, no right to attorney’s fees existed for the complete absence of a justiciable issue of law or fact. Unless legislative intent to the contrary is disclosed, statutes operate prospectively. Walker & LaBerge v. Halligan, 344 So. 2d 239 (Fla.1977); Fleeman v. Case, 342 So. 2d 815 (Fla.1976); Foley v. Morris, 339 So. 2d 215 (Fla.1976). No clear legislative intent mandating retroactive application appears in the language of the statute. Even without a legislative mandate, however, procedural rights granted by a statute may be applied retroactively because no vested rights in any mode of procedure exist. Ex parte Collett, 337 U.S. 55, 69 S.Ct. 944, 93 L.Ed. 1207 (1949); Walker & LaBerge v. Halligan, supra. If the statute does not affect vested rights or create new obligations, it may be applied retroactively. Conversely, parties are entitled to rely on substantive rights which vested before the passage of a new statute. Walker & LaBerge v. Halligan, supra.
Appellee contends that the rights afforded by the statute are procedural rather than substantive and are therefore retroactive. We disagree. The right afforded by the statute is not, as appellee suggests, the right to file a frivolous suit; it is, instead, a right to recover attorney’s fees when a justiciable issue as described in the statute is absent. That right did not exist prior to the enactment of Section 57.105, Florida Statutes (Supp.1978). We disagree with appellee’s argument that because the statute appears under the heading of court costs, it presents only a new procedural device for obtaining recovery. See generally, Allen v. Dutton, 384 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). In our view, a new right has been created and the award of attorney’s fees is not retroactive under the statute. Tuggle v. Government Employees Insurance Co., 220 So. 2d 355 (Fla.1969); Stone v. Town of Mexico Beach, 348 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).
In light of our disposition of this cause, we need not consider the other issues presented on appeal.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Whitten v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 410 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 1982)…enes & Associates, Inc. v. Walter E. Heller & Co., 396 So. 2d 760 (Fla.3d DCA 1981); T.I.E. Communications, Inc. v. Toyota Motors Center, Inc., 391 So. 2d 697 (Fla.3d DCA 1980); Hernandez v. Leiva, 391 So. 2d 292 (Fla.3d DCA 1980); Love v. Jacobson, 390 So. 2d 782 (Fla.3d DCA 1980). The holdings of Allen v. Estate of Dutton and these later cases comport with the intent of the legislature in adopting the statute. See Note, Attorney’s Fees: Florida Statute 57.105, 5 Nova L.J. 89 (1980), and sources cited there…
-
Mullins v. Kennelly, 847 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…under circumstances not previously authorized. As a result, we conclude that the revised statute cannot be applied retroactively to papers filed, actions taken or matters occurring prior to the effective date of the amendment. See Love v. Jacobson, 390 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (holding that prior version of section 57.105 would not be applied retroactively); accord McMahan v. Toto, 256 F. 3d 1120, 1129 (11th Cir.2001); Porteous v. Fowler, 394 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). But that does not resolve the…
-
Belcher v. First Nat'l Bank OF Miami, 405 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…tions, Inc. v. Toyota Motors Center, Inc., 391 So. 2d 697 (Fla.3d DCA 1980), and would not constitute a retroactive application of Section 57.105 since the statute took effect June, 1978 and this appeal was filed in November, 1978, Love v. Jacobson, 390 So. 2d 782 (Fla.3d DCA 1980), we nonetheless find that they are not merited under the facts of this case. In light of the recent Popovich ruling, appellants’ position, although unsuccessful on the merits, was clearly not frivolous. Allen v. Estate of Dutton, 3…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ex parte Collett, 337 U.S. 55 (U.S. 1949)
- Carola D. Allen v. Est. of Ellen C. Dutton, 384 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Walker & LaBERGE, Inc. v. Halligan, 344 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 1977)
- Fleeman v. Clark Case, 342 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 1976)
- Foley v. George A. Morris, M.D., 339 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 1976)
- Silas R. Stone and Charles R. Krisher v. Town OF Mexico Beach, 348 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- Eldred L. Tuggle and Catherine Tuggle v. Gov't Emps. Ins. Co., 220 So. 2d 355 (Fla. 1969)