RICHARD L. WARE, APPELLANT,
v.
LAND TITLE COMPANY OF FLORIDA, INC., SHARON L. WILLIAMS, AND GERHARD B. ZINK, 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.
The court held that an express finding of no justiciable issue is required before awarding attorney's fees under section 57.105(1), Florida Statutes, and reversed the awards due to the absence of such findings.
[1] An order awarding attorney's fees under section 57.105(1), Florida Statutes, must contain an express finding by the court of an absence of any justiciable issue of law or…
[2] The absence of an express finding of no justiciable issue renders an order awarding attorney's fees under section 57.105(1), Florida Statutes, technically deficient and s…
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 intelligenceThe trial court dismissed appellant's complaint with prejudice and subsequently awarded attorney's fees to the appellees under section 57.105(1), Flor…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHOONOVER, Chief Judge.
The appellant, Richard L. Ware, challenges orders awarding attorney’s fees to the appellees, Land Title Company of Florida, Inc., and Sharon L. Williams. We reverse.
The trial court, after dismissing the appellant’s complaint with prejudice, entered an order awarding attorney’s fees to Land Title Company of Florida, Inc. and another order awarding attorney’s fees to Sharon L. Williams. Both awards were based upon section 57.105(1), Florida Statutes (1989). The appellant filed timely notices of appeal from each of the orders, and the appeals have been consolidated.
The appellant does not contend that the trial court erred in dismissing his complaint with-prejudice because it did not state a cause of action against the appel-lees. He does, however, contend that the court erred in awarding attorney’s fees to the appellees. We agree.
Before attorney’s fees can be awarded to the prevailing party under section 57.105(1), the court must find an absence of any justiciable issue of either law or fact raised by the complaint or defense of the losing party. This finding must be express and without it an order awarding such fees is technically deficient and must be reversed. Whitten v. Progressive Casualty Ins. Co., 410 So. 2d 501 (Fla.1982); Maryland Casualty Ins. Co. v. Semmer Elec., Inc., 535 So. 2d 670 (Fla.2d DCA 1988); Apgar & Markham Constr., Inc. v. Macasphalt, Inc., 424 So. 2d 41 (Fla.2d DCA 1982). The orders in this case did not contain the necessary findings and, therefore, were deficient.
We, accordingly, reverse and remand with directions to make an appropriate finding based on the record. If the court expressly finds the absence of any justiciable issue of either law or fact, it may reassess attorney’s fees, but in doing so must follow the dictates of Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla.1985), holding modified by Standard Guaranty Ins. Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So. 2d 828 (Fla.1990).
Reversed and remanded.
RYDER and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Country Place Cmty. Ass'n, Inc. v. J.P. Morgan Mortg. Acquisition Corp., 51 So. 3d 1176 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…a conclusion of law concerning the interpretation of a statute or contractual provision, we employ a de novo standard of review. See Gibbs Constr. Co. v. S.L. Page Corp., 755 So. 2d 787, 790 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Ware v. Land Title Co. of Fla., Inc., 582 So. 2d 46, 46-47 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Stevens v. Zakrzewski, 826 So. 2d 520, 521 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). III. DISCUSSION We begin our discussion by noting that J.P. Morgan’s counsel appeared at the hearing on Country Place’s motion for attorney’s fees and succe…
-
Thorpe v. Myers, 67 So. 3d 338 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…f discretion.” In re Doe, 932 So. 2d 278, 284 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). To the extent that the circuit court based its rulings on its interpretation of the pertinent statute, we employ a de novo standard of review. See Ware v. Land Title Co. of Fla., Inc. 582 So. 2d 46, 46-17 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (applying de novo review). III. MS. THORPE’S GUARDIAN’S FEES, CASE NO. 2D10-2977 A. Ms. Thorpe’s Fee Petition On March 29, 2010, Ms. Thorpe filed a petition for guardian’s fees. The petition was accompanied by a detailed…
-
Haas v. ROE, 696 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…ined any language expressly finding that there was a complete absence of a justiciable issue of either law and fact raised by the complaint. See Hirtreiter v. Donovan, 594 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); see also Ware v. Land Title Co. of Fla., Inc., 582 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Apgar & Markham Constr. of Fla., Inc. v. Macasphalt, Inc., 424 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). We note, however, that the appellant did not raise this issue until he filed his reply brief. In any event, even if the trial court had…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fla. Patient's Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985)
- Standard Guar. Ins. Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 1990)
- Whitten v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 410 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 1982)
- Hill v. State, 424 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- Md. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Semmer Elec., Inc., 535 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)