MILTON F. STEINHARDT AND GLADYS GOLDMAN, APPELLANTS,
v.
EASTERN SHORES WHITE HOUSE ASSOCIATION, INC., 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 Florida Third District Court of Appeal reversed an award of attorney's fees against appellants who refused to complete a settlement agreement. The court held that Section 57.105, Florida Statutes, which permits attorney's fees only when a losing party raises a complete absence of justiciable issues, cannot be applied to penalize a party for refusing to settle before the case is concluded.
The court held that Section 57.105 does not permit an award of attorney's fees before a case is concluded and merely because a party has frustrated a settlement agreement. Attorney's fees under the statute can only be awarded when there is a disposition of the case and a finding that the losing party raised a complete absence of justiciable issues, which requires the merits to have been passed upon.
[1] Attorney's fees are granted only pursuant to contract or statute and statutes allowing attorney's fees are strictly construed.
[2] A court may award attorney's fees under Section 57.105, Florida Statutes, only when there is a complete absence of a justiciable issue of law or fact raised by the losing…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“attorney's fees are in derogation of the common law and will be granted only pursuant to contract or statute. Any statute allowing an award of fees will be strictly construed.”
Establishes the fundamental rule that attorney's fees awards are strictly limited and subject to narrow construction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAfter preparation for protracted litigation, the parties reached a tentative settlement agreement with terms discussed and agreed upon at a court conf…
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 Justiciable Issue cases and more on FLexlaw
FERGUSON, Judge.
The single issue in this appeal challenges an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to Section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1979).
After preparation for protracted litigation, the parties entered into a tentative settlement agreement of several claims. The terms of the settlement were discussed and agreed upon at a conference held in court. In accordance with the agreement, counsel for appellee was to, and did, prepare voluminous settlement documents. Appellants refused to complete the agreement. The trial judge refused to enforce the settlement agreement because she felt she could not do so completely. After a hearing, appellants were ordered to reimburse appellee “pursuant to Chapter 57,” for costs and fees incurred in the preparation of the settlement documents. The case was rescheduled for trial.
The fundamental rule in Florida is that attorney’s fees are in derogation of the common law and will be granted only pursuant to contract or statute. Any statute allowing an award of fees will be strictly construed. Roberts v. Carter, 350 So. 2d 78 (Fla.1977); Sunbeam Enterprises, Inc. v. Upthegrove, 316 So. 2d 34 (Fla.1975); Sheridan v. Greenberg, 391 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).
The statute in question is concise. It empowers the court to:
. . . 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 justiciable issue of either law or fact raised by the losing party.
In order that there be a prevailing party and a losing party, there must necessarily be a disposition of the case or controversy as by judgment or order. There can be no finding that there is a complete absence of a justiciable issue of either law or fact unless the merits of the controversy have been passed upon on the pleadings or proof, or both; there is no such finding in the record — express or implicit.
The purpose of Section 57.105 is to discourage baseless claims, stonewall defenses and sham appeals in civil litigation by placing a price tag through an attorney’s fee award on the losing party. Sachs v. Hoglund, 397 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Construing the statute narrowly, as we must, an award of attorney’s fees before the case is concluded and only because a party has frustrated a settlement agreement cannot be sustained.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Simmons v. Lawrence Schimmel, M.D., 476 So. 2d 1342 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…of a justiciable issue of either law or fact and awards fees under this section, it has, in effect, made a merits determination, thus making the party being awarded fees a "prevailing party.” See Steinhardt v. Eastern Shores White House Association, 413 So. 2d 785, 786 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) ("There can be no finding that there is a complete absence of a justiciable issue of either law or fact unless the merits of the controversy have been passed upon on the pleadings or proof, or both_”). . We note that if this…
-
51 Island WAY Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Williams, 458 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…its costs. We affirm the order of dismissal but remand the case for the award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to the appellant. SCHEB and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur. . Appellees cite Steinhardt v. Eastern Shores White House Association, Inc., 413 So. 2d 785 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), for the proposition that in order for a party to prevail for the purpose of assessing fees under section 57.105, there must be a final disposition of the action. We note, however, that this position has not been uniformly adopted…
-
Kirou v. Oceanside Plaza Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 425 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…r even a “prevailing party” in the proceeding and thus should not have been awarded fees. Kendall East Estates, Inc. v. Banks, 386 So. 2d 1245 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), and cases cited; see also, Steinhardt v. Eastern Shores White House Association, Inc., 413 So. 2d 785 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). Reversed.3 . The association does not challenge this award. . While the appellee claims, and the trial court held that the counterclaim presented a separable controversy, there is no doubt that the position asserted could as w…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Roberts v. Carter, 350 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 1977)
- Sunbeam Enters., Inc. v. Mr. and Mrs. Walter Upthegrove, 316 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 1975)
- Sachs v. Hoglund, 397 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Sheridan v. Greenberg, 391 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Erwin Hunter v. State, 391 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)