HAZEL JOAN DAVIS, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
MARVENE M. CHRISTMAS, DECEASED, 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 Third District Court of Appeal reversed an order denying defendants' motion for attorney's fees under Florida Statute § 57.105 in an automobile negligence case where plaintiffs sued defendants who were lawfully stopped and rear-ended. The court held that the lawsuit was frivolous from inception because defendants, who were properly stopped at a yield sign when struck from behind, could not possibly be found negligent as a matter of law.
The trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion for attorney's fees. The lawsuit was frivolous from its inception because the defendants, who were properly stopped at a yield sign when struck from behind, had no possible legal or factual basis on which they could be found negligent.
[1] A lawsuit is frivolous under section 57.105, Florida Statutes, when it is so clearly devoid of merit on both the facts and the law as to be completely untenable.
[2] Merely losing a case on the pleadings or by summary judgment is insufficient to warrant attorney's fees under section 57.105, Florida Statutes.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“The trial court abused its discretion in denying the Davises' motion for attorney's fees, as the lawsuit against them was frivolous "from its inception."”
Establishes the standard for frivolous litigation under § 57.105 and the court's holding that the trial court abused its discretion.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHazel and Anthony Davis were lawfully stopped at a yield sign when their car was rear-ended by a vehicle driven by Hector Urrutia. Marvene Christmas w…
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 Statute cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendants in an automobile negligence case appeal from an order denying their motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1996). For the following reasons, we reverse.
Hazel and Anthony Davis, defendants below, were lawfully stopped at a “Yield” sign when their car was rear-ended by a car driven by Hector Urrutia. Marvene Christmas was a passenger in Urrutia’s car. Urru-tia and Christmas sued the Davises for negligence. Following discovery, the trial court entered summary judgment for the defendants. This court, per curiam, affirmed. Christmas v. Davis, 671 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). The Davises then moved for attorney’s fees pursuant to section 57.105, arguing that the action filed against them was frivolous and lacked any justiciable issue of law or fact.
The trial court abused its discretion in denying the Davises’ motion for attorney’s fees, as the lawsuit against them was frivolous “from its inception.” See Huie v. Dent & Cook, P.A., 635 So .2d 111, 112 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). “Merely losing, either on the pleadings or by summary judgment, is not enough to invoke the operation of the statute.” Carnival Leisure Indus. Ltd. v. Arviv, 655 So. 2d 177, 181 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). However, in this case the plaintiff did not merely lose on summary judgment; the lawsuit “was so clearly devoid of merit on both the facts and the law as to be completely untenable.” See id. at 181. The Davises were properly stopped at the “Yield” sign when they were struck from behind. There was no possible legal or factual basis on which they could be found negligent.
In Rojas v. Drake, 569 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), the court reversed an award of section 57.105 fees to defendants in an automobile negligence action. The defendants, occupants of a car that was rear-ended, had been involved in a multi-ear collision. The court held that they were not entitled to attorney’s fees under section 57.105, where “the nature of the accident and the number of people involved [made] it difficult for the plaintiff to know exactly who was at fault.” Rojas, 569 So. 2d at 860. In this case, there was no such vehicular or legal confusion and no conceivable basis to ascribe liability to the defendants.
Accordingly, we reverse the order denying fees. We remand with directions to the trial court to award defendants fees under section 57.105 to be imposed against plaintiffs counsel and to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine the amount of fees to be assessed.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Davis v. Marvene M. Christmas, 705 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
-
Gilda Rosenberg v. Ileana Morales, 804 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…The effective date of the revision to section 57.105 is October 1, 1999. Thus, any sane- [*624] tions would have to be assessed under the old statute, which required a finding that the lawsuit was frivolous “from its inception.” Davis v. Christmas, 705 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). Under no circumstances would such a finding be warranted in this case. See also Vasquez v. Provincial South, Inc., 795 So. 2d 216, 218 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (stating that “the principal expansion of section 57.105 refocused the tim…
-
In re Est. OF Ronald Lett. Jeannette Lett Heitman v. Caceres, 725 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…ee Loewenthal v. Mandell, 125 Fla. 685, 170 So. 169 (Fla.1936). Accordingly, we reverse and remand with directions to the trial court to award the appellant attorney’s fees pursuant to Section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1997). See Davis v. Christmas, 705 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). Reversed and remanded with directions.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Huie v. Dent & Cook, P.A., 635 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Rojas v. Drake, 569 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- Carnival Leisure Indus. Ltd. v. Arviv, 655 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Davis v. Marvene M. Christmas, 705 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)