ARTHUR RESNICK, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
COUNTY LINE AUTO CENTER, INC., 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 court held that the trial court erred in awarding attorney's fees under section 57.105 because the plaintiff's action, though ultimately unsuccessful, was not frivolous.
Plaintiff sued for negligence after suffering injuries due to an alleged optical illusion created by the defendant's painted curb. The trial court gra…
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 Frivolous Actions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Arthur Resnick appeals from an order awarding County Line Auto Center, Inc. attorney’s fees pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1993). For the following reasons, we reverse.
Resnick sued County Line for negligence, alleging that the auto dealer had painted its curb the same color as its walkway tile, creating a trap and an optical illusion that no “step down” existed, and that the negligent design had caused him to suffer permanent injuries. The trial court denied County Line’s motion to dismiss, but later granted County Line’s motion for summary judgment. This court affirmed. Resnick v. County Line Auto Center Inc., 619 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993).
There was no basis in this case for an award of fees pursuant to section 57.105. Although the defendant ultimately prevailed, “we cannot say that the facts demonstrate a total lack of a justiciable issue at the time suit was filed which would support a finding that the action was frivolous.” Mitchell v. Schindler Haughton Elevator Co., 587 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). The standard of frivolousness necessary to support an award of fees pursuant to section 57.105 “is not equivalent to the standard required to prevail on a-summary judgment, judgment on the pleadings, or even a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action.” Rojas v. Drake, 569 So. 2d 859, 860 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (emphasis in original; citations omitted). Defendant’s success on summary judgment on this record does not demonstrate that “the action was so clearly devoid of merit both on the facts and the law as to be completely untenable.” Muckenfuss v. Deltona Corp., 508 So. 2d 340, 341 (Fla.1987).
REVERSED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brockway v. Town OF Golfview, 675 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…sure Indus. Ltd. v. Holzman, 660 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Huie v. Dent & Cook, P.A., 635 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Fairview Properties v. Pate Constr. Co., Inc., 638 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Resnick v. County Line Auto Ctr., Inc., 639 So. 2d 1091 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Wiggins v. Southern Management Corp., 629 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Cossio v. World Sav. and Loan Assn., 619 So. 2d 402 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). But we also hasten to warn both litigants and lawyers who would advance frivolous…
-
Preferred Gov't Ins. Tr. v. Aelion, 307 So. 3d 129 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)…ing whether the actual costs incurred are reasonable.”) The mere fact that PGIT did not ultimately prevail on its argument did not render it frivolous or support the imposition of sanctions under section 57.105. Resnick v. Cty. Line Auto Ctr., Inc., 639 So. 2d 1091, 1092 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (reversing order imposing sanctions under section 57.105, noting the mere fact that the defendant prevailed on a motion for summary judgment does not demonstrate that “the action was so clearly devoid of merit both on the f…
Authorities Cited
- Muckenfuss v. Deltona Corp., 508 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 1987)
- Rojas v. Drake, 569 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- Mitchell v. Schindler Haughton Elevator Co., 587 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Montford, 619 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
- Resnick v. Cnty. Line Auto Ctr., Inc., 619 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)