CLAUTIDE JEAN-PIERRE, JAMES JEAN-PIERRE, AND REYNOLD JEAN-PIERRE, APPELLANTS,
v.
MADELINE GLABERMAN, 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.
Homeowners appealed a foreclosure judgment, writ of bodily attachment, and attorney's fees award. The court affirmed the foreclosure and attachment orders but reversed the attorney's fees award because the trial court failed to make detailed written findings explaining the basis for imposing sanctions under section 57.105.
The court reversed the attorney's fees award because the trial court failed to make detailed and specific findings of fact required by law when imposing sanctions under section 57.105. The court affirmed the foreclosure judgment and writ of bodily attachment.
[1] A trial court order granting attorney's fees under section 57.105 requires written findings detailing the reasons for the award.
[2] Failure to make specific written findings regarding the basis for awarding attorney's fees under section 57.105 constitutes reversible error.
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“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.'”
Establishes the requirement that trial courts must make detailed factual findings when awarding section 57.105 sanctions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involved a mortgage foreclosure dispute. During the proceedings, the appellee filed a motion for attorney's fees under section 57.105, Florid…
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
. The homeowners appeal three trial court orders (1) entering a final judgment of foreclosure in favor of appellee, (2) entering a -writ of bodily attachment against the homeowners, and (3) granting the appel-lee’s motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to section 57.105. We affirm the first, two orders without discussion, and reverse the third order because the trial court failed to make written findings regarding the reasons for granting the motion.
The underlying dispute in this case involved a mortgage foreclosure. During the pendency of the case, the appellee filed a motion for attorney’s fees, pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2015), which was granted by the trial court, holding the homeowners and their legal counsel “jointly and severally liable for sanctions in the form of attorney’s fees.”
“Generally, the standard of review of a trial court’s order awarding section 57.105(1) attorney’s fees is abúse of discretion. However, to the extent a trial court’s order on fees is based on an issue of law, this court applies de novo review.” Lago v. Kame By Design, LLC, 120 So.3d 73, 74 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (citations omitted).
We agree with the homeowners that the trial court erred when it failed to make detailed findings in its order regarding the basis for the fees sanction. In Blue Infiniti, LLC v. Wilson, 170 So.3d 136 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015), we explained:
*614Additionally, the 'only finding that the trial court made in its order Was its “finding the Civil RICO claim was frivolous.” This falls short of the requirement that the trial court make detailed and specific findings 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.’ ” 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 be heard and without making detailed findings in its order;
Id. at 140-41, Since there are no findings of fact in the order on the motion for sanctions in this case, the order does not fully comply with the requirements of the law. Therefore, we remand the case for the trial court to make the appropriate findings. See id. (reversing and remánd-ing for the trial court to allow for a full hearing); cf. Bank of New York Mellon v. Kossis, 165 So.3d 793, 796 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (remanding, in a case that required written findings of fact, for the trial court to make such findings).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. ■ ■
WARNER, MAY and CONNER, JJ., ' concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Russell v. Mells, 426 So. 3d 913 (Fla. 2d DCA 2025)
-
Austin & Laurato, P.A. v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 229 So. 3d 911 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…erally against Law Firm and its client, Armelle Cleophat.1 We reversé. Orders awarding attorney’s fees as a sanction under section 57.105(1) for raising frivolous claims or defenses are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Jean-Pierre v. Glaberman, 192 So. 3d 613, 613 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (quoting Lago v. Kame By Design, LLC, 120 So. 3d 73, 74 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)). Under this standard, “[i]f reasonable men could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, then the action is not unreason…
-
Valente v. Raissi, 343 So. 3d 640 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022)…. Carrollwood Vill. Phase III Homeowners Ass'n, 326 So. 3d 1181, 1185 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021) ("A fee award as a sanction under section 57.105(1) requires the circuit court to make detailed findings on the basis of its award."); Jean-Pierre v. Glaberman, 192 So. 3d 613, 613 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (reversing fee order under section 57.105(1) when the trial court "failed to make detailed findings in its order regarding the basis for the fees sanction"); see also Austin & Laurato, P.A. v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 229 S…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities 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)
- Blue Infiniti, LLC v. Wilson, 170 So. 3d 136 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)
- AVIS Rent A CAR Sys., Inc. v. Newman, 641 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Regions Bank v. Sarwat M. GAD, 102 So. 3d 666 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)
- The Bank OF NEW York Mellon v. Kossis, 165 So. 3d 793 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)