REGIONS BANK, APPELLANT,
v.
SARWAT M. GAD, ET AL., 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.
The court affirmed dismissal of the bank's complaint with prejudice but reversed the attorney's fees award because the trial court failed to make required findings of fact under section 57.105.
An award of attorney's fees under section 57.105, Florida Statutes, must be supported by written findings of fact, and an award without such findings must be reversed.
[1] An award of attorney's fees under section 57.105, Florida Statutes, must be supported by written findings of fact in the trial court's order, and an award lacking such fi…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“the order awarding fees contained no findings of fact”
Daniels v. Reeves, cited for the proposition that section 57.105 fees awards must be supported by findings of fact
Regions Bank filed a third amended complaint against Sarwat M. Gad and others. The trial court dismissed the complaint with prejudice and awarded atto…
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 Appellate Review Of Fee Awards cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, Regions Bank, seeks review of an order dismissing its third amended *667complaint with prejudice and directing Appellant to pay attorney’s fees to Appellee, Sarwat M. Gad, apparently, pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2009). We affirm the dismissal of Appellant’s third amended complaint with prejudice without further comment. However, because the portion of the order directing Appellant to pay Appellee’s attorney’s fees pursuant to section 57.105 contains no findings of fact to support the award, we are constrained to reverse this portion of the order. See, e.g., Daniels v. Reeves, 712 So.2d 839, 840 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (reversing the award of section 57.105 attorney’s fees “because the order awarding fees contained] no findings of fact .... ”); Glisson v. Jacksonville Transp. Auth., 705 So.2d 186, 187 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Mahaney v. Sumter Elec. Coop., Inc., 732 So.2d 373, 374 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (remanding “for the trial court to make appropriate written findings to support its earlier award of section 57.105 attorney’s fees.”). On remand, if the trial court again concludes that an award of attorney’s fees is appropriate, it should recite in its order the facts upon which it bases that conclusion. Should the trial court expressly find that an award of attorney’s fees is appropriate, it may reassess the same attorney’s fees without the need of taking further evidence.
Accordingly, we affirm all aspects of the order other than the award of attorney’s fees.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED with directions.
PADOVANO, LEWIS, and CLARK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Zaida Lago, Julio Lago, Juan Carlos Lago & Alberto N. Moris, P.A. v. Kame BY Design, LLC, 120 So. 3d 73 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…motion for section 57.105 sanctions. Furthermore, if the trial court concludes that an award of fees under section 57.105 is an appropriate sanction, “it should recite in its order the facts upon which it bases that conclusion. Regions Bank v. Gad, 102 So. 3d 666, 667 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). For the foregoing reasons, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Reversed and Remanded. TAYLOR, LEVINE and FORST, JJ., concur. . We conclude that the Lagos were ' the losing party”…
-
Blue Infiniti, LLC v. Wilson, 170 So. 3d 136 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…of bad faith. “[I]f the trial court concludes that an award of fees under section 57.105 is an appropriate sanction, ‘it should recite in its order the facts upon which it bases that conclusion.’” Lago, 120 So. 3d at 75 (quoting Regions Bank v. Gad, 102 So. 3d 666, 667 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)); see also Avis Rent A Car Sys., Inc. v. Newman, 641 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). It was therefore error for the trial court to impose sanctions upon Blue Infiniti and its attorney prior to affording a full opportunity to…
-
Clautide Jean-Pierre v. Glaberman, 192 So. 3d 613 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…f bad faith. “[I]f the trial court concludes that an award of fees under section 57,105 is an appropriate sanction, ‘it should recite in its order the facts upon which it bases that conclusion.’ ” Logo, 120 So. 3d at 75 (quoting Regions Bank v. Gad, 102 So. 3d 666, 667 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)); see also Avis Rent A Car Sys., Inc. v. Newman, 641 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). It'was therefore error for the trial court to impose sanctions upon Blue Infiniti and its attorney prior to affording a full opportunity to…
Authorities Cited
- Szuba v. State, 712 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- Daniels v. Reeves, 712 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- Mahaney v. Sumter Elec. Coop., Inc., 732 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)