RICHARD E. KISLING, T/A REK GROUP, APPELLANT,
v.
LEE WOOLDRIDGE, APPELLEE
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 court held that the trial court was justified in awarding attorney fees under section 57.105 because the plaintiff's tortious interference claim was frivolous and lacked proof of essential elements.
Plaintiff sued for tortious interference with a business relationship, alleging his membership in a Home Builder's Association was harmed by the defen…
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 Tortious Interference With A Business Relationship cases and more on FLexlaw
[*748] ORFINGER, Judge.
The trial court awarded an attorney fee to appellee (defendant below) under the provisions of section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1979), after granting a motion for involuntary dismissal at the close of the plaintiff’s case. Only that portion of the final judgment awarding the attorney fee is appealed. We affirm.
In Allen v. Estate of Dutton, 384 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), this court outlined the requirements for the award of attorney’s fees under section 57.105. This case clearly falls within those requirements. In the action brought here, charging tortious interference with an advantageous business relationship, appellant proved none of the essential elements of that tort. Appellant is a builder, who contended that his membership in the Home Builder’s Association is a valuable business relationship, but it is clear that he showed neither an interference with that relationship by appellee nor any damage. The most that can be said is that appellee, for whom appellant built a home, wrote a letter of complaint to the Association, contending that he was unable to get action on some needed corrections. Appellant may have been offended by the letter, but there is no evidence that anything adverse resulted from it. In fact, the contrary is shown.1
The trial court was justified in finding the action frivolous and in awarding the fees. See White v. The Montebello Corporation, 397 So. 2d 326 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).
The order appealed from is affirmed. For the reasons expressed here, appellee’s motion for appellate attorney fees under the same statute is granted, and the cause is remanded to the trial court to fix that fee.
AFFIRMED.
COBB and FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., JJ., concur. . The record shows that after the letter of complaint was received by the Association and placed on file, appellant was elected treasurer of the Association.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Whitten v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 410 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 1982)…ty Seating & Interiors, Inc., 402 So. 2d 24 (Fla.3d DCA 1981); Buckner v. Allergan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 400 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Braden River Civic Association v. Manatee County, 403 So. 2d 1007 (Fla.2d DCA 1981); Kisling v. Wooldridge, 397 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Sachs v. Hoglund, 397 So. 2d 447 (Fla.3d DCA 1981); White v. Montebello Corp., 397 So. 2d 326 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); City of Deerfield Beach v. Oliver-Hoffman Corp., 396 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Denes & Denes & Associates,…
-
Fierer v. 18TH Ave. Dev. Corp., 417 So. 2d 1005 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…overnment Employees Insurance Company, 398 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); City of Miami Beach v. Town of Bay Harbor Islands, 380 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). The trial court’s findings are abundantly supported by the record. Kisling v. Woolridge, 397 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). Voluntary dismissal is not a bar to an award of attorney’s fees. MacBain v. Bowling, 374 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); see also Gordon v. Warren Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc., 340 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). Appellan…
-
Pena v. Britton, 595 So. 2d 1095 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…ports the trial court's finding that the counterclaim failed to raise justiciable issues of either law or fact and the trial court should be affirmed. Fierer v. 18th Avenue Development Corp., 417 So. 2d 1005 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Kisling v. Woolridge, 397 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); White v. Montebello Corporation, 397 So. 2d 326 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). Affirmed.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Carola D. Allen v. Est. of Ellen C. Dutton, 384 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- White v. The Montebello Corp., 397 So. 2d 326 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)