P.N. AND THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, APPELLANTS,
v.
D.P., 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.
The Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services sought to recover public assistance payments for child support from the appellee, who counterclaimed for attorney's fees under section 57.105, arguing the action lacked justiciable issues. The trial court awarded fees but failed to make required statutory findings, and on appeal the court reversed, finding H.R.S. acted in good faith based on maternal affidavits and there was no evidence it knew or should have known the appellee was not the father.
The court reversed the attorney's fees award because the trial court's order was deficient in failing to expressly find that there was no justiciable issue of law or fact as required by section 57.105. Additionally, the record did not support an award of fees because H.R.S. acted in good faith reliance on maternal affidavits and there was no evidence H.R.S. knew or should have known the appellee was not the father.
[1] An order awarding attorney's fees must state the statutory basis for the award.
[2] A court must expressly find that there was no justiciable issue of law or fact to award attorney's fees under section 57.105, Florida Statutes.
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 putative father who obtains a ruling that he is not the children's father may not recover attorney's fees on the ground of a complete absence of justiciable issue of law or fact where H.R.S. brings an action in good faith reliance on information provided by the mother.”
Establishes the legal standard that good faith reliance on maternal affidavits precludes attorney's fees awards 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 intelligenceH.R.S. filed a petition on December 22, 1989, seeking to recover $1,889 in public assistance paid for two children (P.P. and J.P.), alleging the appel…
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 Counterclaim For Attorney'S Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
THREADGILL, Judge.
The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (H.R.S.) challenges an order awarding attorney’s fees to the appellee, D.P., in this suit to recover public assistance monies for the support of two children. We reverse.
H.R.S. filed its petition against the appel-lee on December 22, 1989, alleging he was legally responsible for the support of two children, P.P. and J.P., and asking that he reimburse H.R.S. $1,889, which had been paid for their support. The appellee answered, denying these allegations.
The appellee also filed a counterclaim seeking attorney’s fees under section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1989), stating that there was no justiciable issue of law or fact because H.R.S. had made no reasonable attempt to investigate the allegations of the petition. The counterclaim was pending when the appellee later moved for attorney’s fees without citing any statutory basis for entitlement. H.R.S. subsequently filed a voluntary dismissal.
The trial court awarded attorney’s fees to the appellee in the amount of $3,412.50, but failed to state the statutory basis for the award. Although it may be inferred from the pending counterclaim that the trial court awarded fees based on section 57.105, the order is still deficient because it fails to expressly find that there was no justiciable issue of law or fact. Ware v. Land Title Company of Florida, Inc., 582 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 2d DCA1991). We therefore reverse. See id. Even if the order were correct on its face, the record does not support an award.
A putative father who obtains a ruling that he is not the children’s father may not recover attorney’s fees on the ground of a complete absence of justiciable issue of law or fact where H.R.S. brings an action in good faith rebanee on information provided by the mother. Richardson v. Helms, 502 So. 2d 1372 (Fla. 2d DCA1987). H.R.S. filed its petition against the appellee based on affidavits of paternity from the children’s mother R.P. and their sister P.N. which had been submitted with their applications for Aid to Families with Dependent Children.
The appellee argues that notwithstanding the affidavits H.R.S. knew or had reason to know that he was not the children’s father when it petitioned for support. This contention, however, is not borne out by the evidence. The record of the hearing consists of a statement prepared by the trial court in lieu of a transcript. It sets forth evidence that the children’s mother was married to the appellee at the time the children were born. The statement also refers to a final judgment of dissolution of marriage which discusses other children but makes no mention of J.P. and P.P. Although it may be argued that the judgment casts doubt on the children’s paternity, there is no evidence that H.R.S. was aware of the substance of the judgment. Nor is there any evidence H.R.S. continued to prosecute the case against the appellee after learning of the dispositions contained in the judgment. In the absence of any evidence that H.R.S. knew or should have known that the appellee was not the father, an award of fees under section 57.105 is improper. We therefore reverse the order awarding attorney’s fees to the appellee.
Reversed.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Goldberg v. Watts, 864 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…. An order awarding attorney’s fees under section 57.105 must include findings by the trial court to support the award. Mason v. Highlands County Bd., 817 So. 2d 922, 923 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), review dismissed, 839 So. 2d 698 (Fla.2003); P.N. v. D.P., 626 So. 2d 271, 272 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). The order in this case includes none of the findings required by section 57.105. Based on these deficiencies, we reverse the order awarding Watts attorney’s fees and affirm the trial court in all other aspects. Affirmed…
-
Fla. Dep't OF Revenue v. Hannah, 745 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…ovided by the mother, appellee could not recover attorney’s fees under subsection 57.105(1), Florida Statutes, because under those circumstances there were justiciable issues of law and fact at the time of the filing of the action. See P.N. v. D.P., 626 So. 2d 271, 272 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Richardson v. Helms, 502 So. 2d 1372, 1373 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). On the facts presented here, the same rule applies. The paternity of the child is something that in the normal course of events a grandmother would likely know.…
-
N. Lakeland Pain & Trauma, Inc. v. Benson, 813 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…award is justified under section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2001). In the trial court, Benson never suggested that she was entitled to fees under section 57.105, and the trial court made no findings that would support such an award. See P.N. v. D.P., 626 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Further, other than citing the statute as a possible basis to affirm the trial court, Benson does not suggest how the record in this case supports an award of fees under section 57.105. Accordingly, we reverse the award of attorn…
Authorities Cited
- Ware v. Land Title Co. OF Fla., Inc., 582 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Donna Richardson & the Fla. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Helms, 502 So. 2d 1372 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)