BANK ONE, CORP. N/K/A JP MORGAN CHASE & CO., APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT BORNSCHEIN AND LUXURY CARS, ETC., APPELLEES
BANK ONE, CORP. N/K/A JP MORGAN CHASE & CO., APPELLANT,
ROBERT BORNSCHEIN AND LUXURY CARS, ETC., APPELLEES
987 So. 2d 172
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (2008)
Caution
Cited by 6 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
The appellant challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion for attorney’s fees based upon both an offer of settlement and section 57.105, Florida Statutes. While the order does not make any findings of fact as to whether the offer qualified or was made in good faith, such findings are not required under the offer of judgment statute. Evans v. Piotraczk, 724 So. 2d 1210, 1213 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). There is no transcript of the hearing where the court denied the motion, and we cannot determine whether the trial court’s ruling was an abuse of its discretion. Without this we must affirm. Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150,1152 (Fla.1979).
WARNER, MAY, JJ., and BIDWILL, MARTIN J., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ghanzanfar Raza v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co. in Tr. for the Benefit of the Certificateholders for Argent Sec. Tr. 2005-W4, 100 So. 3d 121 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…rs not on what transpired at the hearing on attorney’s fees but rather on what was decided. The trial judge needed to award a reasonable fee, but under the circumstances could not fail to award any fee. For example, the majority cites to Bornschein, 987 So. 2d 172, for the proposition that no findings by the trial court were required. But Bornschein was an offer of judgment fee case. Likewise, Bethune, 510 So. 2d 1039, involved a frivolous claim under section 57.105. The controlling law is set forth in Sorr…1 / 2
-
KEY W. Seaside, LLC v. Certified Lower Keys Plumbing, Inc., 208 So. 3d 718 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)…orney’s fees based upon an offer of judgment because “[tjhere is no transcript of the hearing where the court denied the motion, and we cannot determine whether the trial court’s ruling was an abuse of its discretion.” Bank One, Corp. v. Bornschein, 987 So. 2d 172, 172 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). Seaside has the temerity to argue that the record on appeal indicates that there could have been no basis for the trial court to find that Seaside made its offer in bad faith. Seaside’s argument should be summarily rejected…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Pitcher v. Schneider (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Albert v. Applegate et ux., 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979)
- Evans v. Piotraczk, 724 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)