B.R. FRIES & ASSOCIATES, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
THE DUBLIN COMPANY AND OLD, REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY, 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.
B.R. Fries & Associates appealed a trial court judgment awarding attorney's fees of $4,200 to The Dublin Company under Florida Statute § 57.105. The court affirmed the award, finding that Fries's contribution and indemnity action against Dublin lacked any factual or legal basis.
The court affirmed the attorney's fee award, finding that the record supported the trial court's findings that the action against Dublin lacked any basis in law or fact and that the fee award under § 57.105 was proper.
[1] A trial court may award attorney's fees pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes, when there is a complete absence of an issue of law or fact supporting a claim.
[2] A voluntary dismissal of an action does not preclude a trial court from awarding attorney's fees to a prevailing party under section 57.105, Florida Statutes.
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“a complete absence of an issue of either law or fact, which suggests, hints at, or raises an inference that The Dublin Company was somehow involved in the plaintiff's accident”
The trial court's findings supporting the award of attorney's fees under § 57.105, establishing that the appellant's action lacked any factual or legal basis.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFries was a general contractor and Dublin was a subcontractor on a project where an individual was injured. The injured party sued Fries. Dublin filed…
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 Voluntary Dismissal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment of the trial court awarding attorney’s fees in the amount of $4,200 to appellee The Dublin Company pursuant to section 57.-105, Florida Statutes (1983).
The attorney's fee award was incorporated in a final judgment entered in favor of defendant The Dublin Company and against appellant in appellant’s action for contribution and indemnity against The Dublin Company and its liability insurer, Old Republic Insurance Company. The subject action arose out of a separate suit brought against appellant by an individual who claimed to have been injured on a site at which appellant was the general contractor and appellee The Dublin Company was a subcontractor. Subsequent to The Dublin Company’s filing of a motion for summary judgment and in conjunction with the settlement of the separate personal injury lawsuit, appellant filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the subject action against appellees. The trial court found in awarding attorney’s fees that there was “a complete absence of an issue of either law or fact, which suggests, hints at, or raises an inference that The Dublin Company was somehow involved in the plaintiff’s accident.”
Upon consideration of the record, briefs and arguments of counsel, we have concluded that the trial court did not err in awarding attorney’s fees to appellee. We find that the record supports the court’s findings and the award of attorney’s fees pursuant to section 57.105. See Parrino v. Ayers, 469 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 479 So. 2d 118 (Fla.1985); Keen v. Bernardo, 452 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Therefore the judgment appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Keen v. Bernardo, 452 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Dick Parrino v. Ayers, 469 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)