JACQUES AGHION, APPELLANT,
v.
FRANCO INVESTMENTS, LLC, APPELLEE
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.
Franco Investments sought attorney's fees against appellant Aghion for filing a frivolous appeal that violated the law of the case established in a prior appellate decision. The court granted the motion for sanctions under Florida Statutes section 57.105 and Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.410, finding the appeal was taken in disregard of already-decided issues.
The appeal was frivolous as taken in disregard of the law of the case below. The court granted Franco Investments' motion for reasonable attorney's fees against Aghion and his counsel jointly and severally under both section 57.105(1)(b) and Rule 9.410(a), (b)(1).
[1] An appeal that disregards the law of the case is frivolous and warrants sanctions under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.410 and section 57.105(1), Florida Statutes.
[2] Sanctions for frivolous appeals may be awarded under both Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.410 and section 57.105(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
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“The present appeal is governed, and clearly precluded, by the law of the case. We therefore grant Franco Investments, LLC's motion for reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to section 57.105(l)(b) and Rule 9.410, and remand to the trial court for the sole purpose of determining the amount of appellate attorney's fees, which we award against Appellant Aghion and his counsel jointly and severally.”
The core holding establishing that the appeal was frivolous under the law of the case and awarding sanctions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAghion appealed after the court had already denied his motion to enforce the mandate in Corkidi v. Franco Investments, LLC. Issues raised in this appe…
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 Attorney'S Fees As Sanction cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellee, Franco Investments, LLC, seeks an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.410 and section 57.105(1), Florida Statutes (2014), incurred defending against the Appellant’s, Jacques Aghion’s, allegedly frivolous appeal from the trial court’s order. Because we find that Aghion’s appeal was frivolous as taken in disregard of the law of the case below, sanctions against Aghion and his counsel are warranted under both section 57.105 and Rule 9.410. Aghion filed this appeal after the Court had already denied his motion to enforce the mandate in Corkidi v. Franco Investments, LLC, — So.3d - (Fla. 3d DCA 2015), and issues raised in this appeal had earlier been decided adversely to Aghion in the original appeal, Corkidi v. Franco Investments, LLC, 100 So.3d 91, 92 (Fla. *5793d DCA 2012). Aghion subsequently filed motions for rehearing and certification with respect to the mandate order. On June 17, 2015, this Court denied the motions, with concurrence by Judge Shepherd that bears repeating.1
Section 57.105(l)(b) provides for sanctions when the application of then-existing law to material facts does not support a claim or defense and Rule 9.410(a), (b)(1), provides for sanctions for the filing of any brief that is deemed to be frivolous. On appeal, both section 57.105 and Rule 9.410 provide a basis for attorney’s fees as a sanction. See, e.g., Visoly v. Sec. Pac. Credit Corp., 768 So.2d 482, 490 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). The present appeal is governed, and clearly precluded, by the law of the case. We therefore grant Franco Investments, LLC’s motion for reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to section 57.105(l)(b) and Rule 9.410, and remand to the trial court for the sole purpose of determining the amount of appellate attorney’s fees, which we award against Appellant Aghion and his counsel jointly and severally. See Aspen Air Conditioning, Inc. v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 170 So.3d 892(Fla. 3d DCA 2015); JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Hernandez, 99 So.3d 508 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011).
Motion granted, remanded with instructions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. Wellness & Rehab. Ctr., Inc. v. Mark J. Feldman, P.A. (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)…ut should remain undated and unsigned at the time of the initial service pursuant to this subdivision. held: “Rule 9.410(a), (b)(1), provides for sanctions for the filing of any brief that is deemed to be frivolous.” Aghion v. Franco Invs., LLC, 174 So. 3d 578, 579 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015). Whether a party has filed a frivolous appeal generally depends on the particular documents and issues before the tribunal, not a list of statutory criteria. See, e.g., Aspen Air Conditioning, Inc. v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am.…
Authorities Cited
- Damien Townes v. State, 768 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Hernandez, 99 So. 3d 508 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)
- Corkidi v. Franco Invs., LLC, 100 So. 3d 91 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)
- Aspen AIR Conditioning, Inc. v. Safeco Ins. Co. OF Am., 170 So. 3d 892 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)