MARK PERLMAN, ESQ. AND MARK PERLMAN, P.A., APPELLANTS,
v.
AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE COMPANY, BETTY SUTTLEMYER, IOAN MARTON, CHARLES ROULEAU, SHAWN HART, TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY OF AMERICA AND MORTGAGE INFORMATION SERVICES, INC., 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.
Attorney Mark Perlman appealed section 57.105 fee awards against him and his client, as well as an order denying his rule 1.540 motion for relief from judgment. The court affirmed the denial of the rule 1.540 motion but reversed the fee awards because the trial court failed to make an express finding that Perlman had not acted in good faith based on his client's representations.
The court affirmed the denial of the rule 1.540 motion but reversed the fee awards to the extent they required Perlman to pay fees because the trial court failed to make an express finding regarding Perlman's lack of good faith reliance on his client's representations, which is required when imposing section 57.105 fees against counsel.
[1] A trial court must make an express finding that an attorney was not acting in good faith based upon the representations of their client when imposing liability for sectio…
[2] A fee award under section 57.105 must be reversed if the trial court fails to include an express finding that the attorney was not acting in good faith based upon the rep…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“In awarding fees pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes, the trial court must make an express finding that the claim was frivolous and, where the trial court imposes liability for the fee award against counsel, an express finding that the attorney was not acting in good faith based upon the representations of his client.”
Establishes the two-part requirement for imposing section 57.105 fees against counsel
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMark Perlman, an attorney, and his law firm were sued by Ameriquest Mortgage Company, Shawn Hart, and Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America…
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.
STEVENSON, J.
In this consolidated appeal, Attorney Mark Perlman appeals orders awarding section 57.105 attorney’s fees, payable by Perlman and his former client, to appellees Ameriquest Mortgage Company, Shawn Hart, and Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America and an order denying his rule 1.540 motion seeking relief from the section 57.105 fee judgment entered against him and his former client and in favor of appellee Mortgage Information Services, Inc. We affirm the order denying Perlman’s rule 1.540 motion for relief from judgment without further comment. While Perlman raises a number of challenges to the fee award in favor of appel-lees Ameriquest, Hart, and Travelers, we find merit in only one — his claim that the fee award must be reversed because the trial court failed to include in its orders awarding such fees an express finding that Perlman had not acted in good faith based upon the representations of his client.
In awarding fees pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes, the trial court must make an express finding that the claim was frivolous and, where the trial court imposes liability for the fee award against counsel, an express finding that the attorney was not acting in good faith based upon the representations of his client. See, e.g., Valdes v. Lovaas, 784 So. 2d 474, 475 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Weatherby Assocs., Inc. v. Ballack, 783 So. 2d 1138, 1143 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). No such finding is included in the orders appealed. We thus reverse the fee judgments to the extent that they require Perlman to pay half of such award and remand the matter to the trial court to either make the required finding regarding Perlman’s lack of good faith reliance or deny the imposition of fees as to counsel.
Affirmed in Part; Reversed in Part; and Remanded.
MAY, J., and LABARGA, JORGE, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ainslee R. Ferdie, Law Offs. of Ainslee R. Ferdie, & Ferdie & Lones, Chartered v. Isaacson, 8 So. 3d 1246 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…under section 57.105, it “must make [1] an express finding that the claim was frivolous and, ... [2] an express finding that the attorney was not acting in good faith based upon the representations of his client.” Perlman v. Ameriquest Mortgage Co., 987 So. 2d 1292, 1292 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (emphasis supplied) (citing Valdes v. Lovaas, 784 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Weatherby Assoc. Inc. v. Ballack, 783 So. 2d 1138, 1143 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)). The trial court’s order finding the Isaacsons to be entitled to…
-
Pronman v. Styles, 163 So. 3d 535 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…, it “must make [1] an express finding that the claim was frivolous and, ... [2] an express finding that the attorney was not acting in good faith based upon the representations of his client.” Id. at 1250 (quoting Perlman v. Ameriquest Mortg. Co., 987 So. 2d 1292, 1292 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)). ■ While Perlman and its progeny were good law under a pre-19992 version of the [*538] statute, we are compelled to recede from our holding in these cases because the statute was amended in 1999 to state: Upon the court’…
-
Dux v. Dicker Krivok Stoloff (15th Cir. Ct. App. Div. 2012)…ey require Perlman to pay half of such award and remand the matter to the trial court to either make the required finding regarding Perlman's lack of good faith reliance or deny the imposition of fees as to counsel. Perlman v. Ameriquest Mort. Co., 987 So. 2d 1292 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (emphasis added); and see Santini v. Cleveland Clinic Florida, 65 So. 3d 22 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). Although it is entirely possible that the trial court made this finding orally in the case at bar, this Court does not have a transc…
Authorities Cited
- Weatherby Assocs., Inc. v. Ballack, 783 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Nadia L. Valdes v. Dr. Gregory C. Lovaas, M.D., 784 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)