L.L., ETC., ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
ANGELA B. ZIPPERER AND ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA, 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.
This case addresses whether a trial court properly awarded attorney's fees to Orange County under Florida Statute 57.105 when plaintiffs sued the county for negligence despite being notified in writing that the defendant employee was a state, not county, employee. The appellate court affirmed the fee award, finding no abuse of discretion.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney's fees to Orange County. The plaintiffs raised no justiciable issue of law or fact against the county and proceeded with the lawsuit despite written notice that the defendant was a state employee, not a county employee.
[1] A trial court does not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney's fees under section 57.105, Florida Statutes, when a party sues a governmental entity without a justicia…
[2] Filing suit against a governmental entity based on an erroneous assumption about employee status, without conducting minimal investigation after receiving notice of non-l…
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“Clearly, there was no justiciable issue of law or fact raised against the county.”
Establishes that the lawsuit against the county lacked any legal or factual basis, supporting the fee award.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs sued Orange County for injuries caused by Angela Zipperer, who was operating her own vehicle while employed by the Orange County Health Dep…
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 Section 57.105 cases and more on FLexlaw
ORFINGER, Judge.
We find no abuse of the trial court’s discretion in awarding of attorney’s fees to appellee Orange County under the provisions of section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1985). Appellants sued Orange County alleging that Angela Zipperer, while operating her own vehicle in the course and scope of her employment as an employee of the Orange County Health Department, negligently injured the minor plaintiff. To comply with section 768.28(6), Florida Statutes (1985), appellants notified the State Insurance Commissioner of the accident, contending that Zipperer was a state employee (as she was) and demanding damages from the state, sending a copy of the demand to Orange County. The County promptly advised appellants’ counsel that Zipperer was not a county employee. Despite this advice, and without investigating further, appellants joined the County as a defendant, only to voluntarily dismiss it after the County moved for summary judgment and asked for attorney’s fees. Clearly, there was no justiciable issue of law or fact raised against the county. Trial counsel’s explanation for joining the County was that he assumed that the Orange County Health Department was an agency of the County.
Nothing the county did led to this erroneous assumption. Zipperer was driving her own automobile, so the only basis on which liability was asserted against the County was the allegation that she was a county employee acting within the scope of her employment when the accident occurred. Counsel apparently verified Zipperer’s employment with the Health Department but did not make even a minimal investigation to determine if the health unit was, in fact, an agency of the County before filing suit, despite the fact that he had been notified in writing that Zipperer was not a county employee. Thus, the facts in this case are similar to those in Parrino v. Ayers, 469 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985) and in Galbraith v. Inglese, 402 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), where the award of fees under this statute was approved, and are distinguishable from McHan v. Huggins, 459 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), where the defendant was incorrectly sued as the owner of the offending automobile because the official police accident report listed her as the owner. AFFIRMED.
DAUKSCH and COWART, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Indem. Ins. Co. OF N. Am. a/s/o Unidas Sys., Inc. v. Chambers, 732 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…Pak. The trial judge also awarded Tetra Pak its expert witness fees incurred in establishing the reasonableness of its attorney’s fees. We find ample record support for the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees to Tetra Pak, see L.L. v. Zipperer, 484 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), and, therefore, find no abuse of discretion. See Transflorida Bank v. Miller, 576 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). We also affirm the award of expert witness fees, Appellant having conceded the authority of Travieso v. Travieso,…
-
State v. James, 681 So. 2d 886 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…he property was conveyed to James’ predecessor-in-interest pursuant to the 1937 tax deed before raising a defense based on section 95.361. See Ensign Bank, F.S.B. v. South Florida Warehousing II, 582 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); L.L. v. Zipperer, 484 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Parrino v. Ayers, 469 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 479 So. 2d 118 (Fla.1985); McHan v. Huggins, 459 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Galbraith v. Inglese, 402 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). See also Mitchell v. Sch…
Authorities Cited
- Galbraith v. Inglese, 402 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- McHAN v. Huggins, 459 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- Dick Parrino v. Ayers, 469 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)