FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE ON BEHALF OF D.H., APPELLANT,
v.
BERNARD HANNAH, 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 Florida Department of Revenue appealed an award of attorney's fees to the appellee in a paternity action. The court reversed, holding that the Department acted reasonably in relying on the grandmother's identification of the father and therefore did not lack good faith or probable cause sufficient to trigger sanctions under Florida Statutes § 57.105(1).
The court reversed the attorney's fee award, holding that it was reasonable for the Department to rely in good faith on the statement of the grandmother, who would normally be expected to know the paternity of a child in her care, and therefore the complaint was not so clearly devoid of merit as to lack a justiciable issue at the time of filing.
[1] A court may award attorney's fees under section 57.105(1), Florida Statutes, only when there is a complete absence of a justiciable issue.
[2] A claim or defense is considered completely devoid of merit, both in fact and law, to warrant attorney's fees under section 57.105(1), Florida Statutes, if it is complete…
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 suit or defense must be so clearly devoid of merit both on the facts and the law as to be completely untenable”
Establishes the high standard required for finding a complete absence of a justiciable issue under § 57.105(1)
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn September 1997, the Department of Revenue filed a complaint to determine paternity of a 13-year-old child and seek child support based on informati…
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 Fla. Stat. § 57.105 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The Florida Department of Revenue appeals an order awarding appellee attorney’s fees pursuant to subsection 57.105(1), Florida Statutes (1997). We reverse.
In September 1997, the Department of Revenue filed a complaint against appellee to determine paternity of a 13-year-old child. The complaint further alleged that appellee was responsible for child support. The Department filed the complaint because D. H., the child’s custodian (the maternal grandmother), named appellee as the father of the minor child when applying for public assistance. Appellee denied he was the father. After genetic testing, appellee was excluded as the biological father. The Department voluntarily dismissed the action.
Appellee moved for attorney’s fees under subsection 57.105(1), Florida Statutes. The matter was heard by the general master who determined that appellee was entitled to attorney’s fees. The general master found that the Department’s complaint was not filed in good faith or with probable cause because the Department relied on the word of the grandmother and did not contact the mother to investigate before filing the case. The Department filed exceptions to the general master’s findings. The trial court denied the exceptions and granted appellee’s motion for attorney’s fees.
Subsection 57.105(1), Florida Statutes, provides for a reasonable attorney’s fee award where the court finds that there was a complete absence of a justiciable issue. See § 57.105(1), Fla. Stat. (1997).
The purpose of this statute is to discourage baseless claims ... in civil litigation by placing the price tag of attorney’s fee awards on the losing parties. In order to find a complete absence of a justiciable issue, the suit or defense must be so clearly devoid of merit both on the facts and the law as to be completely untenable.
Carnival Leisure Indus., Ltd. v. Holzman, 660 So. 2d 410, 412 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (citations omitted).
If, in filing its complaint, the Department had relied in good faith on information provided by the mother, appellee could not recover attorney’s fees under subsection 57.105(1), Florida Statutes, because under those circumstances there were justiciable issues of law and fact at the time of the filing of the action. See P.N. v. D.P., 626 So. 2d 271, 272 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Richardson v. Helms, 502 So. 2d 1372, 1373 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). On the facts presented here, the same rule applies. The paternity of the child is something that in the normal course of events a grandmother would likely know. In filing its suit, it was not unreasonable under the circumstances of this case for the Department to rely on the statement of the grandmother.*
Reversed.
*
This case is unlike Collins v. Brodzki, 574 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), where in a paternity suit there was evidence available to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (which the Department apparently refused to examine) that the mother had conceded that the respondent was not the father of the child.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Briggs Allen, 772 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…th in reliance on the paternity affidavit executed by the mother of the child. Accordingly, we must reverse the order awarding attorney’s fees to the putative father under section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1997). See Department of Revenue v. Hannah, 745 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). We recognize that section 57.105 was revised in 1999 to allow an attorney’s fee if a claim was known to be without support in fact or in law “at any time before trial,” but this case is not governed by the revised version of the…
-
Newton B. Schwartz, Sr. v. Millon AIR, Inc., 341 F.3d 1220 (11th Cir. 2003)…circumstances, Appellants reasonably (or something close to it) relied upon the representations of Briones, the Ecuadorean clients’ spokesman and representative as well as the referring attorney in this case. See Fla. Dep’t of Revenue v. Hannah, 745 So. 2d 1055, 1056-57 (Fla. Dist.Ct.App.1999) (concluding that, under the circumstances of the case, it was not unreasonable for the Department of Revenue to rely upon the grandmother’s statement regarding paternity of the child); see also Snow v. Rosse, 455 S…
Authorities Cited
- Carnival Leisure Indus., Ltd. v. Holzman, 660 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Donna Richardson & the Fla. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Helms, 502 So. 2d 1372 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- P.N. & the State of Fla. v. D.P., 626 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Miami PAN Am. Realty, Inc. v. Coleen G. Werner, 574 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)