RUDY MUCKENFUSS, ETC., PETITIONER,
v.
DELTONA CORPORATION, ETC., RESPONDENT
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 Supreme Court reversed the Fifth District Court of Appeal's award of attorney's fees under section 57.105, holding that the statute requires a complete absence of justiciable issues and cannot be invoked merely because a substantial portion of litigation was meritless when some justiciable issues were present.
Attorney's fees under section 57.105 cannot be awarded unless the court finds a complete absence of justiciable issues—a total or absolute lack that makes the action frivolous and completely untenable. The presence of any justiciable issues, even if only in a portion of the lawsuit, precludes an award of attorney's fees under this statute.
[1] An award of attorney's fees under section 57.105, Florida Statutes, requires a finding of a total or absolute lack of a justiciable issue, which is tantamount to a findin…
[2] The presence of justiciable issues in a lawsuit does not preclude an award of attorney's fees limited to the portion of litigation attributable to frivolous issues.
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“a substantial portion of this lawsuit and this appeal consisted of a legal controversy in which there was virtually a complete absence of a justiciable issue of either law or fact”
The district court's finding that justified its reversal of the trial court's fee denial, which the Supreme Court found insufficient under the statute
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMuckenfuss brought a civil action against Deltona Corporation. The trial court denied an award of attorney's fees. The Fifth District Court of Appeal …
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 Fla. Stat. § 57.105 Construction cases and more on FLexlaw
SHAW, Justice.
We have for review Muckenfuss v. Deltona Corp., 487 So. 2d 1079, (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), because of direct and express conflict with Whitten v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co., 410 So. 2d 501 (Fla.1982). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. The district court reversed the trial court’s denial of attorney’s fee, finding that “a substantial portion of this lawsuit and this appeal consisted of a legal controversy in which there was virtually a complete absence of a justiciable issue of either law or fact.” Muckenfuss, 487 So. 2d at 1079 (emphasis added). Section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1983), authorizes an attorney’s fee award to the prevailing party “in any civil action in which the court finds that there was a complete absence of a justiciable issue of either law or fact raised by the losing party.” The purpose of the section 57.105 is to discourage “baseless claims, stonewall defenses and sham appeals in civil litigation.” Whitten, 410 So. 2d at 505. Section 57.105 fees will not be awarded unless the court finds “a total or absolute lack of a justiciable issue, which is tantamount to a finding that the action is frivolous ... and so clearly devoid of merit both on the facts and the law as to be completely untenable.” Id. (emphasis deleted). Accordingly, the court erred in awarding an attorney’s fee notwithstanding its finding that a substantial portion of the suit was meritless since justiciable issues were present.
Relying on Hernandez v. Leiva, 391 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), respondent argues that the presence of a justiciable issue will not preclude an award limited to fees incurred in litigating against frivolous issues. Respondent’s reliance is misplaced. The Hernandez court found that the attorney’s fees awarded for frivolous litigation were not precluded by justiciable issues raised in a separate trial on damages.
Accordingly, we disapprove the district court’s decision and remand for further proceedings consistent herewith.
It is so ordered.
MCDONALD, C.J., and OVERTON, EHRLICH, BARKETT and KOGAN, JJ., concur. GRIMES, J., dissents with an opinion.
GRIMES, Justice,
dissenting.
There is authority for the proposition that attorney’s fees may be awarded under section 57.105 against a party for continuing to assert its claim or defense which has become patently spurious during the course of the litigation. Wall v. Department of Transportation, 455 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Keen v. Bernardo, 452 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); but see Klein v. Layne, Inc., 453 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). Therefore, our quarrel with the district court’s opinion seems to center upon its use of the word “virtually.” I am unwilling to read that opinion so narrowly as to conclude that the court was authorizing an award of attorney’s fees even though there existed at least some justiciable issues of law or fact.
I respectfully dissent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (40 total)
-
Weatherby Assocs., Inc. v. Ballack, 783 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…ded under section 57.105(1), Florida Statutes, where there is a total or absolute lack of justiciable issues of either law or fact, this being tantamount to a finding that the action is frivolous or completely untenable. Muckenfuss v. Deltona Corp., 508 So. 2d 340, 341 (Fla.1987); Berman & Feldman v. Winn Dixie, Inc., 684 So. 2d 320, 322-23 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Sykes v. St. Andrews Sch., 625 So. 2d 1317 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). The trial court’s finding must be based upon substantial competent evidence presented…
-
Country Place Cmty. Ass'n, Inc. v. J.P. Morgan Mortg. Acquisition Corp., 51 So. 3d 1176 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…of the statute as follows: A court could award attorney’s fees under the prior version of section 57.105, only if there was a “complete absence of a justiciable issue of either law or fact.” § 57.105, Fla. Stat. (1997); Muckenfuss v. Deltona Corp., 508 So. 2d 340 (Fla.1987). The essential finding the court was required to make to justify an award of fees under the prior statute could only be made at the conclusion of the entire case. Until then, the trial court would be unable to determine whether all of the…
-
Patsy v. Rosanne M. Patsy, 666 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…sticiable issue of either law or fact raised by the complaint or defense of the losing party,” but does not authorize attorney’s fees for filing a frivolous motion where the underlying action or defense is not frivolous. Muckenfuss v. Deltona Corp., 508 So. 2d 340 (Fla.1987). Nor does Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.150, which provides for the striking of sham pleadings, contain any language authorizing the award of attorney’s fees. See Kirby v. Adkins, 582 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Muckenfuss. Ther…
Previewing 3 of 40 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)
- Hernandez v. Leiva, 391 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Klein v. Layne, 453 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Leolus L. Wall v. Dep't OF Transp. OF the State OF Fla., 455 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Keen v. Bernardo, 452 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Muckenfuss v. The Deltona Corp., 487 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Clarice Stephens v. Renard, 487 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)