STEVEN FRISCHER, APPELLANT,
v.
MARGARITA QUINTANA, JOSE QUINTANA, AND ANNETTE QUINTANA, 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.
Steven Frischer appealed the trial court's denial of attorney's fees, prejudgment interest, and costs following his litigation against the Quintanas. The appellate court affirmed the denial of attorney's fees under section 57.105 but reversed the denial of costs, holding that the trial court had no discretion to deny costs to the prevailing party under section 57.041.
The trial court properly denied attorney's fees under section 57.105 because Frischer's argument about when the cause of action accrued, though weak, was not entirely devoid of merit. However, the trial court erred in denying costs because section 57.041 gives the trial court no discretion to deny costs to a prevailing party.
[1] A trial court's denial of a motion for attorney's fees under section 57.105, Florida Statutes, is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
[2] A claim, even if weak, may not be so devoid of merit as to constitute an abuse of discretion when a trial court declines to award attorney's fees under section 57.105, Fl…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Admittedly, this lawsuit was filed almost fifteen years after the applicable statute of limitations had run. The argument, however, that the cause of action did not accrue until recently, although feeble, was not so entirely devoid of merit that the trial court's decision to decline to award fees rose to the level of an abuse of discretion.”
Establishes the standard for abuse of discretion in attorney's fees denials and why the trial court's decision was reasonable
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFrischer filed a lawsuit almost fifteen years after the applicable statute of limitations had run. He prevailed in the litigation against the Quintana…
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 Abuse Of Discretion (Standard Of Review) cases and more on FLexlaw
Steven Frischer appeals from a final order of the trial court denying his motion for attorney’s fees and prejudgment interest as a sanction under section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2011), and denying him costs as the prevailing party under section 57.041, Florida Statutes (2011).
We affirm the denial of attorney’s fees under section 57.105. A trial court’s denial of a motion for attorney’s fees under section 57.105 is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Puglisi v. Puglisi, 135 So.3d 1146, 1147 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014); Lago v. Kame By Design, LLC, 120 So.3d 73, 74 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). Admittedly, this lawsuit was filed almost fifteen years after the applicable statute of limitations had run. The argument, however, that the cause of action did not accrue until recently, although feeble, was not so entirely devoid of merit that the trial court’s decision to decline to award fees rose to the level of an abuse of discretion.
The trial court, however, erred in failing to award costs. Section 57.041 provides:
(1) The party recovering judgment shall recover all of his or her legal costs and charges which shall be included in the. judgment; but this section does not apply to executors or administrators in actions when they are not liable for costs.
*493(2) Costs may be collected by execution on the judgment or order assessing costs.
A trial court has no discretion whether to award costs pursuant to this section. Higgs v. Klock, 873 So.2d 591, 592 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (“[UJnder the statute, every party who recovers a judgment in a legal proceeding is entitled as a matter of right to recover lawful court costs, and a trial judge has no discretion to deny costs to the parties recovering judgment.”) (internal quotation and citation omitted); Wilkerson v. Johnson, 139 So.3d 965, 967 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (“Courts have interpreted this statute as removing from the trial court the discretion to deny costs to the prevailing party in a civil action.”). Frischer specifically requested costs as the prevailing party pursuant to section 57.041. Because Frischer was the prevailing party, he was entitled to an award of costs.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part; and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lopez v. Dep't OF Revenue, 201 So. 3d 119 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)…fees. This appeal timely ensued. II. Analysis A Standard of Review/Issues on Appeal ■ . Generally, a trial court’s order denying entitlement to fees under section 57.105 will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. Frischer v. Quintana, 151 So. 3d 491 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014). When a trial court reviews a general magistrate’s recommendations, however, the trial court is bound by the general magistrate’s findings of fact unless those findings are not supported by competent substantial evidence. Rodrigu…
Authorities Cited
- 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)
- Ervin A. Higgs v. Klock, 873 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)
- Puglisi v. Puglisi, 135 So. 3d 1146 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)
- Wilkerson v. Johnson, 139 So. 3d 965 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)