STEPHEN GOLDBERG, APPELLANT,
v.
SUSAN WATTS, 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 court held that an order awarding attorney's fees must have a statutory or contractual basis and, if based on section 57.105, must include specific findings by the trial court.
Stephen Goldberg sought review of a trial court's order dismissing his action as time-barred and an order granting Susan Watts attorney's fees. The or…
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 Statutory Basis For Attorney'S Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
STRINGER, Judge.
Stephen Goldberg seeks review of the trial court’s order dismissing Goldberg’s action as time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Goldberg also seeks review of the order granting Susan Watts attorney’s fees. We affirm the trial court’s order of dismissal without comment and reverse the order awarding attorney’s fees.
Goldberg correctly asserts that the trial court’s order awarding Watts $8015.58 in attorney’s fees and costs is deficient. Absent a statutory basis or applicable contractual provision, “a prevailing party is not generally entitled to an award of attorney’s fees.” N. Lakeland Pain & Trauma, Inc. v. Benson, 813 So. 2d 1075, 1076 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). The order in this case fails to provide a statutory basis for the award, and no contractual provision has been asserted as support for the award.
Though it may be argued that the award in this case is based on section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2002), allowing attorney’s fees as a sanction for raising unsupported claims or defenses or as damages for delay of litigation, the order is still insufficient to support such an award. An order awarding attorney’s fees under section 57.105 must include findings by the trial court to support the award. Mason v. Highlands County Bd., 817 So. 2d 922, 923 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), review dismissed, 839 So. 2d 698 (Fla.2003); P.N. v. D.P., 626 So. 2d 271, 272 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). The order in this case includes none of the findings required by section 57.105.
Based on these deficiencies, we reverse the order awarding Watts attorney’s fees and affirm the trial court in all other aspects.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
CASANUEVA and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dep't OF Revenue o/b/o Laverne Marchines v. Marchines, 974 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…hire counsel, however, is not the dispositive factor in awarding section 57.105 fees against .the Department. “An order awarding attorney’s fees under section 57.105 must include findings by the trial court to support the award.” Goldberg v. Watts, 864 So. 2d 59, 60 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). The trial court’s order against the Department is deficient in this regard, and without such a finding, the award of fees pursuant to section 57.105 is reversible. More important, however, is the fact that the circuit court…
-
Tunnage v. Green, 947 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…xisting law to those material facts.” § 57.105(l)(a)-(b), Fla. Stat. Whereas the order appealed includes none of the findings required by section 57.105, we also reverse the portion of the order awarding Green attorney’s fees. See Goldberg v. Watts, 864 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (reversing an award of attorney’s fees because the trial court failed to make the required findings). As his final point on appeal, Tun-nage argues that the jury returned an inconsistent verdict in finding that he committed fraud…
-
Austin & Laurato, P.A. v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 229 So. 3d 911 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…. 4th DCA 2015) (quoting Montgomery v. Larmoyeux, 14 So. 3d 1067, 1073 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)). An order awarding attorney’s fees as a sanction under section 57.105(1) “must include findings by the trial court to support the award.” Goldberg v. Watts, 864 So. 2d 59, 60 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (citing Mason v. Highlands Cty. Bd., 817 So. 2d 922, 923 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)). “[T]he trial court 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 b…
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
- Marcellus M. Mason, Jr. v. Highlands Cnty. Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs, 817 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- P.N. & the State of Fla. v. D.P., 626 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- N. Lakeland Pain & Trauma, Inc. v. Benson, 813 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)