CAROL KING WILLIAMS, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
CLAUDINE M. KING, ETC., APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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 appellant's actions were not entirely frivolous, thus quashing the personal award of attorney's fees against her.
Appellant, a beneficiary, challenged the administratrix's actions in a probate matter. The trial court initially found her actions frivolous and award…
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
DAUKSCH, Judge.
This is an appeal from orders in a probate matter. The appellant was the daughter of the decedent and a beneficiary under the will. Appellee is the administratrix of the estate. For some reason appellant deemed it in her interest to challenge the actions of appellee and did so in various misguided and ineffectual ways. She lost and deserved to lose. In the primary order on appeal the court made a statement that appellant’s efforts were “frivolous and without merit” and assessed attorneys fees in favor of the estate and against appellant’s interest in the estate, and against appellant personally if her estate interest was inadequate to fully pay the fees. After this order was rendered there was a hearing to assess fees against appellant pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1997).1 At that hearing the judge made the following statement:
While my ruling will stand, it was never my intention to indicate that the suit was totally frivolous. While reasonable men may differ, there was some small basis-there was a basis to file this suit in good faith.
We agree with this statement based upon our reading of the record. That is, the actions of appellant were not so bereft of basis in law or fact as to warrant fees against her personally. Therefore, we quash that portion of the order awarding fees against her personally. We affirm the order awarding fees from appellant’s portion of the estate pursuant to section 733.106.
AFFIRMED; REVERSED.
W. SHARP, and ANTOON, JJ., concur. . Section 57.105 provides that the court shall award reasonable attorney's fees to the prevailing party by the losing party and its attorneys where the court finds a complete absence of justiciable issue of law or fact.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nicola Depadova v. Depadova, 717 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…at there was a complete absence of a justiciable issue of either law of fact concerning Nicola’s petition for modification as pled or as tried. An award of attorney’s fees pursuant to section 57.107 was therefore inappropriate. See Williams v. King, 711 So. 2d 1285 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Cook v. Cook, 602 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Greater Orlando Aviation Authority v. Lake County Board of County Com’rs, 587 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 5 th DCA 1991); Rojas v. Drake, 569 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). Accordingly, the…