RUSSO & BAKER, P.A., APPELLANT,
v.
MARLENE A. FERNANDEZ AND ILEANA GUAIDA, 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.
Russo & Baker, P.A. appealed an award of attorneys' fees and costs to prevailing parties in a will contest, where the trial court assessed fees against both the personal representative and the law firm. The court reversed because the trial court failed to make the required statutory findings under section 57.105, Florida Statutes, and did not hold a proper evidentiary hearing.
The order awarding attorneys' fees was reversed and remanded because the trial court failed to make the required statutory findings that there was a complete absence of a justiciable issue of law or fact raised by the personal representative, failed to find that the law firm did not act in good faith based on the client's representations, and failed to clarify which statute provided the basis for the fee award.
[1] A trial court must make specific statutory findings to award attorneys' fees and costs under section 57.105, Florida Statutes.
[2] To award attorneys' fees under section 57.105, Florida Statutes, a trial court must find a complete absence of a justiciable issue of law or fact raised by the losing par…
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“In assessing attorneys' fees under that statute, the trial court must find that there was a complete absence of justiciable issue of either law or fact raised by the defendant personal representative below.”
Establishes the primary statutory requirement for awarding fees under section 57.105
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMarlene A. Fernandez and Ileana Guaida were successful in a will contest against the personal representative, Esther Visiedo Roig. Russo & Baker, P.A.…
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.
This is an appeal from a final order awarding attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1995), to appellees, Marlene A. Fernandez and Ileana Guaida. The appellees were successful in a will contest against the personal representative, Esther Visiedo Roig. The appellant, Russo & Baker, P.A., represented the personal representative. The order on appeal assesses the fee against the personal representative and the appellant law firm.
We reverse and remand the case for further proceedings on the authority of Broad & Cassel v. Newport Motel, Inc., 636 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). The order on appeal fails to make the required statutory findings for an award under section 57.105. In assessing attorneys’ fees under that statute, the trial court must find that there was a complete absence of justiciable issue of either law or fact raised by the defendant personal representative below.
Additionally, in order to assess fees against the law firm, the trial court must also find that “the losing party’s attorney ... [did not act] in good faith, based on the representations of his or her client.” Finally, the order refers to sections 733.106 and 733.609, Florida Statutes (1995), in addition to Section 57.105, without stating which of those statutes forms the basis of the fee award.
On remand, the trial court should hold a properly noticed evidentiary hearing to determine whether a justiciable issue of either law or fact was raised by the defendant personal representative below and, if not, whether Russo & Baker, P.A. nevertheless acted in good faith in proceeding with its representation of the personal representative in the case. See Snow v. Rosse, 455 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). The trial court should also clarify the application of sections 733.106 and 733.609, Florida Statutes (1995), to any award of fees made in this case.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Weatherby Assocs., Inc. v. Ballack, 783 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…rt must find that there were no justicia-ble issues of law or fact and that the losing party’s attorney did not act in good faith based on the representations of his or her client. § 57.105(1), Fla. Stat. (1999). See also Russo & Baker v. Fernandez, 752 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). The trial court did find that there were no justiciable issues of law or fact. The trial court also found on the face of its order, “Plaintiffs counsel knew or should have known that the claims [against Bal-lack] were not suppo…
-
Murphy v. Wisu Props., Ltd., 895 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…he plaintiffs’ underlying litigation. He also argues that the award of 57.105 fees cannot stand against him because the trial court made no finding that he had proceeded on behalf of the plaintiffs in bad faith. See Russo & Baker, P.A. v. Fernandez, 752 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). Appellants Paske-wich and Springer have adopted these arguments on this appeal as their own. We note initially that at the time the trial court assessed 57.105 fees, the individual appellants/plaintiffs had filed a four count co…
-
Ross v. Blank, 958 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…30, 131-32 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). We dismiss the appeal from the sanction order as premature, but also note that the order contains no finding that appellant’s defamation claim lacked any factual or legal support. See Russo & Baker, P.A. v. Fernandez, 752 So. 2d 716, 717 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)(reversing attorney’s fee award where trial court’s order failed to contain finding of complete absence of justiciable issue of law or fact). Finally, appellant claims the trial court abused its discretion by failing to condu…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hezekiah Smith v. State, 455 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Broad AND Cassel v. Newport Motel, Inc., 636 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Freundlich v. State, 636 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)