DARRELL DUNN, APPELLANT,
v.
MONA LISA KEAN, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 2006-03-14
No. 1D05-1188
BARFIELD, WOLF, and HAWKES, JJ., concur.
928 So. 2d 383 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (2006) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases

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.


Holding

The court affirmed the trial court's decision and granted the appellee's motion for attorney's fees.


Facts & Procedural History

Appellant and his brother were discontent with the administration of their mother's probate estate and appealed the trial court's decisions multiple t…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Discontent with the administration of their mother’s probate estate, Appellant and his brother turn to this court for at least the tenth time. All of the issues raised in this appeal are again without merit, and the trial court is affirmed without further discussion.

Appellee moves for attorney’s fees pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2005), which enables this court to sanction Appellant with fees if he knew or should have known his claims were legally and factually without merit. See Churchville v. Ocean Grove R.V. Sales, Inc., 876 So. 2d 649, 651 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). Appellant should have known his claims were legally and factually without merit.

The majority of the issues in this appeal have already been heard and decided by this court. The issues not previously decided are nothing more than mere expressions of Appellant’s dissatisfaction with the trial court’s exercise of its discretion. Unfortunately, Appellant’s dissatisfaction is not accompanied by any legal basis as to how the court abused its discretion. Accordingly, we grant Appellee’s motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to section 57.105 and remand to the trial court to determine the amount.

AFFIRMED and REMANDED.

BARFIELD, WOLF, and HAWKES, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Simpson v. In re Est. OF Roosevelt Norton, 949 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)
    …the purchase price of the property approved by the court exceeds the “fair market value” of the property given the property’s state of disrepair. Although we empathize with Simpson’s situation, she points out no legal error. See, e.g., Dunn v. Kean, 928 So. 2d 383, 383 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)(holding that dissatisfaction with the administration of a probate estate unaccompanied by any legal basis as to how the trial court abused its discretion is not grounds for an appeal). Simpson and the personal representative…
  • …nly one spouse”) (citations omitted). Accordingly, we affirm. Moreover, because this appeal is devoid of any arguable merit, we grant Kavanaugh’s motion for attorneys’ fees, made pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2005). See Dunn v. Kean, 928 So. 2d 383, 383 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). We remand to the trial court, with directions that it determine the appropriate amount of fees to be awarded for Kavanaugh’s lawyers’ services in this appeal should the parties be unable to agree. AFFIRMED and REMANDED, w…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw