XEROX CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
MOHAMMED ALI SHARIFI, D/B/A KING KOPY PRINTING, 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.
Xerox Corporation voluntarily dismissed a contract action against Sharifi after discovering a technical error in its complaint, and Sharifi obtained an award of attorney's fees under Florida Statute 57.105. The appellate court reversed, holding that a voluntary dismissal based on a technical defect does not constitute a frivolous action warranting attorney's fees when the underlying claim has merit.
A voluntary dismissal does not, by itself, support an award of attorney's fees under section 57.105. The award must be based on a finding that the action is frivolous—completely untenable and devoid of merit on both facts and law. Since Xerox's suit was based on a valid contract claim that Sharifi conceded, it was not frivolous, and attorney's fees should not have been awarded.
[1] An award of attorney's fees under section 57.105, Florida Statutes, requires a finding that the action is frivolous, meaning it is devoid of merit both on the facts and t…
[2] A frivolous action is one so readily recognizable as devoid of merit on the face of the record that there is little, if any, prospect that it can succeed.
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“To justify an award under section 57.105, the trial court must find that the action is frivolous, that is, that the action is so devoid of merit both on the facts and the law as to be completely untenable.”
Establishes the legal standard for frivolous actions under section 57.105
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceXerox filed suit against Sharifi to recover on a contract. Prior to a summary judgment hearing, Xerox discovered a technical error in its complaint—it…
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 Of Law Or Fact cases and more on FLexlaw
UPCHURCH, Chief Judge.
Xerox Corporation brought a suit to recover on a contract. Prior to a hearing on a motion for summary judgment, Xerox discovered a technical error in its complaint (failure to attach the proper price list which was part of the contract) and elected to voluntarily dismiss under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420. Sharifi applied for and was awarded attorney’s fees under section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1985). This appeal is from the order awarding attorney’s fees. We reverse.
To justify an award under section 57.105, the trial court must find that the action is frivolous, that is, that the action is so devoid of merit both on the facts and the law as to be completely untenable. Whitten v. Progressive Casualty Ins. Co., 410 So. 2d 501 (Fla.1982); Allen v. Estate of Dutten, 384 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 392 So. 2d 1373 (Fla.1980). A frivolous action is not merely one that is likely to be unsuccessful. Instead, like a frivolous appeal:
It is one that is so readily recognizable as devoid of merit on the face of the record that there is little, if any, prospect that it can succeed. It must be one so clearly untenable, or the insufficiency of which is so manifest on a bare inspection of the record ... that it character may be determined without argument or research.
Whitten, 410 So. 2d at 505; Allen, 384 So. 2d at 175. Merely losing, either on the pleadings or by summary judgment, is not enough to invoke the operation of the statute. Whitten, 410 So. 2d at 506; Allen, 384 So. 2d at 175.
In the present case, Xerox voluntarily dismissed its action against Sharifi. Since it does not go to the merits of the case, a voluntary dismissal by itself will not support an award of attorney’s fees under section 57.105. Executive Centers of America, Inc. v. Durability Seating, 402 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Rather the award must be based on a finding of a complete absence of a justiciable issue of either law or fact. Merrill Enterprises, Inc. v. Barkett Oil Co. of Florida, 421 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Executive Centers of America.
It is obvious that the suit filed by Xerox was not baseless or clearly devoid of merit both on the facts and law as to be untenable. It alleged a contract under which sums were due and owing and which Shari-fi conceded that he had failed to pay, certainly not a claim devoid of merit. Fees are not to be awarded under section 57.105 simply because an attorney elects to dismiss as opposed to other procedural avenues which might also be available to him.
REVERSED.
ORFINGER and COWART, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Makar v. Invs. Real Est. Mgmt., Inc., 553 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…. 120, 125, 20 So. 2d 351, 354 (1944)), review denied, 494 So. 2d 1153 (Fla.1986); George Vining & Sons, Inc. v. Jones, 498 So. 2d 695, 697 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). A voluntary dismissal, however, is not a judgment on the merits. Xerox Corp. v. Sharifi, 502 So. 2d 1003, 1004 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Drady v. Hillsborough County Aviation Auth., 193 So. 2d 201, 205 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966), cert. denied, 210 So. 2d 223 (Fla.1968), and cert. denied, 222 So. 2d 751 (Fla.1969). A voluntary dismissal operates as an adjudication o…
-
Muckerman v. Burris, 553 So. 2d 1300 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…982); Muckenfuss v. Deltona Corp., 508 So. 2d 340, 341 (Fla.1987); Bay View Inn, Inc. v. Friedman, 545 So. 2d 417, 418 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); City of Miami Beach v. Town of Bay Harbor Islands, 380 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Xerox Corp. v. Sharifi, 502 So. 2d 1003 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Allen v. Estate of Dutton, 384 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), review denied, 392 So. 2d 1373 (Fla.1980); accord Tiedeman v. City of Miami, 529 So. 2d 1266 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). “Merely losing, either on the pleadings or by summar…
-
Malone v. City OF Satellite Beach, 717 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…s, 514 So. 2d 1077 (Fla.1987); Mueller v. The Florida Bar, 390 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). . Florida Rock Industries, Inc. v. Balbin, 660 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Jacobs v. Jacobs, 633 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Xerox Corp. v. Sharifi, 502 So. 2d 1003 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Trans-County Van Lines, Inc. v. Kronick, 497 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986).…
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
- Whitten v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 410 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 1982)
- Carola D. Allen v. Est. of Ellen C. Dutton, 384 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Executive Ctrs. OF Am., Inc. v. Durability Seating & Interiors, 402 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Merrill Enters., Inc. v. Barkett OIL Co. OF Fla., 421 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Hilsman v. Hilsman, 421 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)