SECURITY PACIFIC CREDIT CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
OASIS PLAZA CORPORATION, BRUCE D. FRIEDLANDER, ET AL., 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.
Security Pacific Credit Corporation appealed the denial of attorney's fees against attorney Bruce Friedlander under Florida Statute section 57.105. The court reversed, holding that Friedlander acted in bad faith by re-litigating claims that had previously been determined to be a sham.
An attorney does not act in good faith under section 57.105 when re-litigating claims that have already been struck down as a sham in another action. Therefore, attorney's fees should have been awarded to the appellee.
[1] An attorney does not act in good faith under section 57.105, Florida Statutes, when re-litigating claims previously determined to be a sham.
[2] Continuing to litigate claims for four years after a judgment striking the pleadings as a sham and awarding attorney's fees for lack of a justiciable issue demonstrates a…
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“Friedlander did not act in good faith where he re-litigated claims that had already been determined to be a sham.”
States the core holding regarding Friedlander's lack of good faith in re-litigating previously determined sham claims.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFriedlander's client had claims that were struck down by the trial court in another action as a sham. Despite the affirmance of the judgment striking …
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 Good Faith Litigation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Security Pacific Credit Corporation (“SPCC”) appeals the denial of attorney’s fees under section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1995), against attorney-appellee, Bruce Friedlander (“Friedlander”). We reverse, because Friedlander did not act in good faith where he re-litigated claims that had already been determined to be a sham.
When Friedlander entered this case, his client’s claims had already been struck down by the trial court in another action as a sham.
Thus, it was clear that these claims lacked any justiciable issue, were devoid of merit and were completely untenable. See Muckenfuss v. Deltona, Corp., 508 So. 2d 340 (Fla.1987); Whitten v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 410 So. 2d 501 (Fla.1982), receded from in part on other grounds, Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla.1985); Morrone v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Ins. Co., 664 So. 2d 972 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Bay Fin. Sav. Bank, F.S.B. v. Hook, 648 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); O’Brien v. Brickell Townhouse, Inc., 457 So. 2d 1123 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).
However, Friedlander continued to litigate these claims for four years, despite the affirmance of the judgment striking the pleadings as a sham and the subsequent award of attorney’s fees for the lack of a justiciable issue under section 57.105. See Visoly v. Security Pacific Credit Corp., 625 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), review denied, 637 So. 2d 239 (Fla.1994); Visoly v. Bodek, 602 So. 2d 979 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992).
Accordingly, Friedlander cannot claim good faith under section 57.105 and the trial court should have -granted SPCC attorney’s fees.
Reversed and remanded with directions to award attorneys fees under section 57.105.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. Viragen, Inc., 902 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…ous, meritless lawsuit against Viragen for which there was a complete absence of a justiciable issue of either law or fact. See Visoly v. Security Pac. Credit Corp., 768 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Security Pac. Credit Corp. v. Oasis Plaza Corp., 714 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (plaintiff “did not act in good faith where he re-litigated claims that had already been determined to be a sham”). Accordingly, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by awarding attorneys’ fees against Walter Smith and h…
-
Miri Mayost Visoly and Aviad Visoly v. Sec. Pac. Credit Corp., 768 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…ssue, were devoid of merit and were completely untenable.... Accordingly, Friedlander cannot claim good faith under section 57.105 and the trial court should have granted SPCC attorney’s fees.” See Security Pacific Credit Corp. v. Oasis Plaza Corp., 714 So. 2d 1039, 1040 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied 728 So. 2d 201 (Fla.1998). The Visolys then obtained another lawyer who appeared “specially” and moved to set aside the November order on attorney’s fees, claiming the Visolys had not been properly served.7 Althou…
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Patient's Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985)
- Whitten v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 410 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 1982)
- Muckenfuss v. Deltona Corp., 508 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 1987)
- Aviad Visoly v. Sec. Pac. Credit Corp., 625 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
- Aviad Visoly v. Bodek, 602 So. 2d 979 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
- BAY Fin. Sav. Bank v. Hook, 648 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Morrone v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 664 So. 2d 972 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- O'Brien v. Brickell Townhouse, Inc., 457 So. 2d 1123 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)