RICHARD BARON AND NANCY J. CLIFF, A PARTNERSHIP DOING BUSINESS AS BARON & CLIFF, APPELLANTS,
v.
DAVID M. FIELDSTONE AND RONALD M. FIELDSTONE, AS TRUSTEES OF FIELDSTONE HOLDINGS, AND TUMA ELECTRIC & PLUMBING SUPPLY, 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.
Court reversed attorney's fees assessment under Fla. Stat. § 57.105 where counsel acted in good faith on client representations supporting a nonfrivolous third-party beneficiary theory of contract liability.
Attorney's fees under § 57.105 are improper when counsel acts in good faith based on client representations supporting a nonfrivolous theory of liability, even if ultimately rejected at summary judgment.
[1] Attorney's fees under Fla. …
Previewing 1 of 1 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“counsel acted in good faith based on representations from his client, the plaintiff, which tended to establish that the plaintiff was a third-party beneficiary of a contract of appraisal”
Court's explanation for reversing the fee assessment
Plaintiff's counsel brought a breach of contract action against a defendant appraiser, claiming plaintiff was a third-party beneficiary of an appraisa…
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 Attorney'S Fees Under Fla. Stat. § 57.105 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by counsel for the plaintiff in a breach of contract action from an adverse trial court order which assesses attorney’s fees under Section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1989), and requires said counsel to pay a portion of said fees. We reverse the order under review upon a holding that counsel acted in good faith based on representations from his client, the plaintiff, which tended to establish that the plaintiff was a third-party beneficiary of a contract of appraisal entered into by the defendant and plaintiff’s debtor. The plaintiff told counsel that the defendant was well aware that the subject appraisal was being done for the plaintiff’s benefit so as to facilitate a loan by the plaintiff to the plaintiff’s debtor. This evidence, together with other evidence indicating that the defendant breached this contract by underap-praising the collateral in question, gave counsel a viable theory of liability upon which to proceed against the defendant.
Although the trial court ultimately rejected this theory and entered a summary judgment for the defendant, the theory was nonetheless nonfrivolous in nature, and counsel acted in good faith based on representations from his client to support this theory. This being so, attorney’s fees were improperly assessed against plaintiff’s counsel. Muckerman v. Burris, 553 So. 2d 1300 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), rev. denied, 567 So. 2d 435 (Fla.1990); Richardson v. Helms, 502 So. 2d 1372 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Snow v. Rosse, 455 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wolfe v. Foreman, 128 So. 3d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)…ating lawyers are entitled to rely on their client’s representations of fact); United States v. Del Carpio-Cotrina, 733 F.Supp. 95, 99 (S.D.Fla.1990) (stating ethical rules do not require lawyers to investigate client); see also Baron v. Fieldstone, 581 So. 2d 649, 650 (1991) (concluding attorney fees were improperly assessed against the plaintiffs counsel where counsel acted in good faith based on his client’s representations). On appeal, Plaintiff-Appellant seeks to direct our attention to the issue of whe…
-
Endacott v. Int'l Hospitality, Inc., 910 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…Goldstein v. Sabella, 88 So. 2d 910, 911 (Fla.1956); Applestein v. Preston, 335 So. 2d 604, 607 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). Instead, as attorneys, the defendants are entitled to rely on their client’s representations of fact. See, e.g., Baron v. Fieldstone, 581 So. 2d 649, 650 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)(reversing an award of attorney’s fees on the basis that “counsel acted in good faith based on representations from his client” in accordance with Section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1998)); Moiel v. Sandlin, 571 S.W. 2d 567, 57…
Authorities Cited
- Hezekiah Smith v. State, 455 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Muckerman v. Burris, 553 So. 2d 1300 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Donna Richardson & the Fla. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Helms, 502 So. 2d 1372 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)