DOUGLAS GROSS, APPELLANT,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Chue v. Lehman, 21 So. 3d 890 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)
  …y’s fees pursuant to section 57.105(1), the trial court must make “ ‘an inquiry into what the losing party knew or should have known during the fact-establishment process, both before and after suit is filed.’ ” Hustad v. Architectural Studio, Inc., 958 So. 2d 569, 571 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (quoting Bowen v. Brewer, 936 So. 2d 757, 762 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)). To award attorney’s fees under section 57.105(1), the trial court [*892] must find that the action was “frivolous or so devoid of merit both on the facts and…
• Nasser v. Nasser, 975 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)
  …es. The award of attorney’s fees under section 57.105 is a matter committed to the sound judicial discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal, absent a showing of clear abuse of discretion. Hustad v. Architectural Studio, Inc., 958 So. 2d 569, 571 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Turovets v. Khromov, 943 So. 2d 246, 248 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). No such showing is present. We have considered appellant’s claims that the trial court applied the wrong standard in considering the motion and that it incorrect…
• Dybalski v. Dybalski, 108 So. 3d 736 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)
  …l court relative to this issue was that husband had withdrawn the petition, which the court equated with a voluntary dismissal. This is insufficient, standing alone, to show bad faith or other vexatious conduct. Hustad v. Architectural Studio, Inc., 958 So. 2d 569, 570 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Arenas v. City of Coleman, 791 So. 2d 1234, 1235 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). Moreover, the claims contained in the motions do not appear frivolous, and husband offered a valid excuse for his withdrawal of the motion. There is also…