JOHN PORTEOUS, II, APPELLANT,
v.
DONALD W. FOWLER, JR., AND HOLLY ANN FOWLER, APPELLEES; JOHN PORTEOUS, II, APPELLANT, V. HARGRAVE YACHT SALES, INC., APPELLEE; JOHN PORTEOUS, II, APPELLANT, V. AMERICANA YACHT BROKERAGE, INC., APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Retroactivity cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm each of the summary final judgments involved in these consolidated appeals, finding that no cause of action was sustained, nor, indeed, stated, as to any of the defendants below and that there are no genuine, material issues of fact.
We reverse the judgments awarding attorneys’ fees on behalf of appellees, Har-grave and Fowler. In each instance the award was based upon Section 57.105 Florida Statutes. The amended complaint was filed in January, 1978, five months prior to the effective date of that statute. We determine that the statute has no retroactive effect, for the reasons expressed in Tuggle v. Government Employees Insurance Company, 220 So. 2d 355 (Fla.1969) which involved attorneys’ fees for services rendered in appellate proceedings. That rationale is equally applicable here.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED.
HERSEY and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., and WETHERINGTON, GERALD T., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mullins v. Kennelly, 847 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…ctive 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 problem presented here because the trial judge sanctioned Mullins and Miller only for actions taken or positions maintained after the effective date of the statute. The central purpose of section 5…
-
Barnett Guthartz v. Lewis, 408 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…5] arguendo, we treat the plaintiffs’ supplemental complaint as the commencement of the action, that pleading was filed five months prior to the effective date of Section 57.105, rendering the statute inapplicable to this action. Porteous v. Fowler, 394 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). Second, none of the several applications and motions for attorneys’ fees filed by the plaintiffs’ attorneys during the course of this protracted litigation contained a claim for attorneys’ fees under Section 57.105, a necessary…
-
Univ. Cmty. Hosp. v. Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 492 So. 2d 1339 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…t of its motion. In contending that the instant fee issue is to be determined under section 120.-57(1)(b)(9) as it existed before October 1, 1984, UCH refers us to Ship Shape v. Taylor, 397 So. 2d 1199, 1201 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Porteous v. Fowler, 394 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Love v. Jacobson, 390 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Tuggle v. Government Employees Insurance Company, 220 So. 2d 355 (Fla.1969). HRS, on the other hand, urges that the claim is [*1340] controlled by the statute in its current o…
Authorities Cited
- Eldred L. Tuggle and Catherine Tuggle v. Gov't Emps. Ins. Co., 220 So. 2d 355 (Fla. 1969)