XAVIER J. FERNANDEZ AND CHIRO INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
CHIRO RISK MANAGEMENT, INC., SOUTHERN BROKERAGE SYSTEMS, INC., KEN SNYDER AND JO ANN HAMBRUCH, JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY, 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.
Xavier Fernandez and Chiro Insurance Services appealed a trial court's award of attorney's fees and costs to the defendants. The appellate court affirmed most of the award but reversed the portion awarding fees to Ken Snyder under section 57.105, finding the trial court failed to make the required finding that there was a complete absence of justiciable issues.
The court affirmed the award of attorney's fees and costs under section 772.11 and the court costs award, but reversed the award of attorney's fees to Ken Snyder under section 57.105 because the trial court failed to make the required finding of a complete absence of justiciable issues of law or fact.
[1] An award of attorney's fees under section 57.105, Florida Statutes, requires a specific finding by the court that there was a complete absence of a justiciable issue of l…
[2] An order assessing attorney's fees under section 57.105, Florida Statutes, is deficient and must be reversed if the required finding of a complete absence of a justiciabl…
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 intelligence“In awarding attorney's fees pursuant to section 57.105, the court must find a complete absence of a justiciable issue of law or fact raised by the losing party.”
Establishes the mandatory requirement for section 57.105 fee awards
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants filed a multi-count complaint against the appellees but were ultimately unsuccessful in their litigation. The trial court awarded attorney'…
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 Of Law Or Fact cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellants, Xavier J. Fernandez and Chiro Insurance Services, Inc., challenge the award of attorney’s fees and costs entered in favor of the appellees, Southern Brokerage Systems, Inc. (SBS), Jo Ann Hambruch, and Ken Snyder. Appellants were the plaintiffs below and filed a multi-count complaint against the appellees. Appellants were ultimately unsuccessful in their litigation. The appellees filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, and the trial court entered an order finding they were entitled to attorney’s fees and costs. There was a subsequent hearing to determine the amount of fees. The trial court in a separate order awarded attorney’s fees of $12,075 to all three appellees pursuant to section 772.11, Florida Statutes (1991). Ap-pellee Ken Snyder was awarded attorney’s fees of $18,881.50 pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes. Finally, appellee SBS was awarded $3,450.75 in court costs. Appellants filed a timely notice of appeal.
We find that the trial court erred only in awarding attorney’s fees to appellee Snyder pursuant to section 57.105. In all other respects, we affirm the award of attorney’s fees and costs to the appellees.
We agree with the appellants’ contention that the trial court erred in granting attorney’s fees to appellee Snyder pursuant to section 57.105 because the court failed to make a specific finding that there was a complete absence of a justiciable issue of either law or fact raised by appellants. In awarding attorney’s fees pursuant to section 57.105, the court must find a complete ab sence of a justiciable issue of law or fact raised by the losing party. Whitten v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 410 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 1982). An order assessing section 57.105 attorney’s fees without this finding is technically deficient and must be reversed. Id. at 506.
Since the trial court did not make this required finding, the case is remanded to the trial court to make this determination. Solimando v. Aloha Medical Center, 566 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). If there is a complete absence of justiciable issues, the court should enter a proper order to that effect, and if not it should deny the motion for section 57.105 fees. Id. at 581.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Franklyn A. Salter, 710 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…re to make findings to support the award of fees and costs pursuant to section 57.105(1), Florida Statutes (1997), would itself require reversal of the order had this matter come to us on plenary appeal. See Fernandez v. Chiro Risk Management, Inc., 700 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). We need not decide whether this shortcoming by itself would require quashing the order under the standard of Haines City if it applies to this issue (see footnote 1), because the order must be vacated under either standard of rev…
-
Daniels v. Reeves, 712 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…Fla.1992). However, because the order awarding attorney fees contains no findings of fact, we are constrained to reverse. See, e.g., Glisson v. Jacksonville Transp. Auth., 705 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Fernandez v. Chiro Risk Management, Inc., 700 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Mickler v. Graham, 611 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). On remand, if the trial court again concludes that an award of attorney fees is appropriate, it shall recite in its order the facts upon which it bases that conclusion. REVE…
-
Glisson v. Jacksonville Transp. Auth., 705 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…105, Florida Statutes (1991). Because the trial court’s order contains no findings of fact to support the award of attorney fees, we are unable intelligently to review the propriety of that award. See, e.g., Fernandez v. Chiro Risk Management, Inc., 700 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Mickler v. Graham, 611 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). Accordingly, we reverse and remand. On remand, if the trial court again concludes that an award of attorney fees is appropriate, it shall recite in its order the facts upon wh…
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
- Whitten v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 410 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 1982)
- Solimando v. Aloha Med. Ctr. & William J. Young, M.D., 566 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)