ANA LAURA ARELLANO AND JORGE ARELLANO, APPELLANTS,
v.
LISETTE ARELLANO BISSON AND RANDOLPH J. BISSON, 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.
Ana Laura Arellano and Jorge Arellano appealed orders denying their requests for attorney's fees and costs after successfully obtaining a final judgment striking the opposing party's pleadings as a sham. The court reversed, holding that prevailing parties are entitled to fees under section 57.105 when pleadings are struck as frivolous and to costs under section 57.041 as a matter of course.
The court held that striking pleadings as a sham constitutes a finding that the action is frivolous and triggers the defendant's automatic entitlement to fees under section 57.105. Additionally, prevailing parties are entitled to recover court costs under section 57.041 as a matter of course upon recovering a judgment, without requiring specific statutory citation in the pleadings.
[1] A final judgment striking a plaintiff's pleadings for the absence of justiciable issues triggers the defendant's entitlement to attorney's fees under section 57.105, Flor…
[2] Striking pleadings as sham is tantamount to a finding that the action was frivolous and devoid of merit, requiring an award of attorney's fees to the prevailing party und…
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“a final judgment striking the plaintiffs pleadings for absence of justiciable issues triggers the defendant's entitlement to fees under section 57.105”
Establishes the legal principle that striking frivolous pleadings automatically entitles defendants to recover attorney's fees
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLisette Arellano Bisson and her husband filed a multi-count complaint against several defendants, including appellants who were Lisette's sister and b…
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.
SHEVIN, Judge.
Ana Laura Arellano and Jorge Arellano appeal orders denying their motions for fees and costs. We reverse.
Lisette Arellano Bisson, and her husband, Randolph, filed a multi-count complaint against several defendants, including appellants, Lisette’s sister and brother. Over the next four years, the complaint was dismissed and amended numerous times. Appellants filed several motions to strike the pleadings as a sham. After a lengthy evidentiary hearing on the last motion to strike as sham, the court granted, the motion, struck the pleadings and entered final judgment for appellants, reserving jurisdiction to determine costs and fees. The Bissons appealed the final judgment; this court dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, the court declined to award fees and costs under sections 57.105, and 772.11, Florida Statutes (1997).
We first address the denial of fees. In Visoly v. Security Pac. Credit Corp., 625 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), review denied, 637 So. 2d 239 (Fla.1994), this court stated that a final judgment striking the plaintiffs pleadings for absence of justiciable issues triggers the defendant’s entitlement to fees under section 57.105. See Wood v. Price, 546 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 553 So. 2d 1166 (Fla.1989). In this case, the court’s act in striking the pleadings as sham was tantamount to a finding that the action was frivolous, i.e., “readily recognizable as devoid of merit and results in [the] action being completely absent a justiciable issue of either law or fact.” Wood, 546 So. 2d at 90. This determination required the court to award section 57.105 fees to appellants, the prevailing parties.1
Additionally, appellants correctly argue that they are entitled to recover their court costs pursuant to section 57.041, Florida Statutes (1997). Under the language of section 57.041, a prevailing party’s entitlement to costs is conditioned solely on recovering a judgment. See W.S.M., Jr. v. Department of Health & Rehab. Servs., 692 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 699 So. 2d 1372 (Fla.1997). Failure to specifically request costs under this section is not fatal to receiving costs.
[S]pecification of the precise statute authorizing costs in practice is almost never required for an award. Section 57.041 creates a general right in a prevailing party for costs following judgment as a matter of course.
Costs are quite simply part of general relief. All pleadings are understood to pray for general relief and are construed to do substantial justice.
Department of Health & Rehab. Servs. v. Crossdale, 585 So. 2d 481, 483 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). As this reasoning demonstrates, there is no basis for denying appellants, as prevailing parties, costs under this section. See Wright v. Caruana, 640 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994).
Based on the foregoing, we reverse the orders denying fees and costs, and remand for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
. Although appellants are also entitled to fees under section 772.11, Florida Statutes (1997), see Skubal v. Cooley, 650 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Ciaramello v. D’Ambra, 613 So. 2d 1324 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), review denied, 599 So. 2d 654 (Fla.1992), the result herein makes it unnecessary to reach this issue.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Granoff v. Seidle, 915 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…rida Intergovernmental Risk Mgmt. Ass’n v. City of Greenacres, 804 So. 2d 448, 451 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) ("We reverse the denial of costs to Greenacres, because as a prevailing party, Greenacres is entitled to recover its costs.”); Arellano v. Bisson, 761 So. 2d 365, 366-67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Oriental Imports, Inc. v. Alilin, 559 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Dragstrem v. Butts, 370 So. 2d 416, 417 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); see also Jones v. ETS of New Orleans, Inc., 793 So. 2d 912, 915 (Fla. 2001) ("A prevailing…
-
Arellano v. Lisette Arellano Bisson and Lower Randolph J. Bisson, 847 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…o entertain the remaining issues which the appellants raised. COPE, J., concurs. .See 3d DCA Case No. 3D98-1318. Purportedly, the appellants could not afford to order the transcripts necessary to consummate their appeal. . See Arellano v. Bisson, 761 So. 2d 365 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). . See Bisson v. Arellano, 844 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003).…
-
Cheetham v. Brickman, 861 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…section 57.105(3) of the Florida Statutes. We also reverse the award of costs. The law is clear that only a prevailing party who recovers a judgment is entitled to recover costs under section 57.041, Florida Statutes (2002). See Arellano v. Bisson, 761 So. 2d 365, 366 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Fernandez v. Hendry Tractor Co., 406 So. 2d 1213, 1214 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Finally, a fee award to Cheetham was rejected below on the finding that Cheet-ham had failed to pay sales proceeds to Brickman until after suit had…
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
- Ciaramello v. D'Ambra, 613 So. 2d 1324 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs. OF the State OF Fla. v. Crossdale, 585 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- Wood v. Price, 546 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- Parvin Wright v. Caruana, 640 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Aviad Visoly v. Sec. Pac. Credit Corp., 625 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
- Skubal v. Cooley, 650 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- W.S.M., JR. v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 692 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)