BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., PETITIONER,
v.
HAMDIJA TURKANOVIC, RESPONDENT
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.
Bank of America's petition for writ of prohibition is granted because the trial court lacks jurisdiction to impose sanctions for a frivolous foreclosure case when BOA voluntarily dismissed the case within the safe harbor period of section 57.105(4), Florida Statutes, before the sanctions motion was filed.
A trial court lacks jurisdiction to impose sanctions for a frivolous foreclosure case when the defendant voluntarily dismisses within the safe harbor period of section 57.105(4), Florida Statutes, before the sanctions motion is filed.
[1] A trial court lacks jurisdiction to impose sanctions under the inherent power doctrine when a defendant voluntarily dismisses a case within the safe harbor period of sect…
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“if a specific statute or rule applies, the trial court should rely on the applicable rule or statute rather than on inherent authority.”
The court explained that trial courts must apply applicable statutes rather than relying on inherent authority when a specific statute governs the issue.
Bank of America filed a foreclosure case against Turkanovic, who moved for sanctions claiming the case was frivolous and seeking attorney's fees. BOA …
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 Safe Harbor Period cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioner, Bank of America, N.A. (BOA), seeks a writ of prohibition to prevent the trial court from compelling the deposition of its corporate representative in furtherance of. Respondent’s motion seeking an award of attorney’s fees as a sanction against BOA for filing this allegedly frivolous foreclosure case. ■ We agree with BOA that the trial court lacks jurisdiction to impose the sanction sought by Respondent because BOA voluntarily dismissed this case within the safe harbor period in section 57,105(4), Florida Statutes, and before Respondent filed his motion for sanctions. See Pino v. Bank of New York, 121 So.3d 23, 42 (Fla.2013); Pomeranz & Landsman Corp. v. Miami Marlins Baseball Club, L.P., ,143 So.3d 1182, 1183 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). Respondent cannot avoid this jurisdictional bar by filing the motion under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525 and basing the request for sanctions on “the' inherent power of the Court” rather than section 57.105(1). See Hall v. Lopez, — So.3d — n. 1, 41 Fla. L. Weekly D1763, n. 1, 2016 WL 4036093 n. 1 (Fla. 1st DCA July 28, 2016) (noting-that “a trial court has a limited inherent authority to assess attorney’s fees against an attorney or party for bad faith conduct, but ‘if a specific statute or rule applies, the trial court should rely on the applicable rule or statute rather than on inherent authority.’ ” (quoting Moakley v. Smallwood, 826 So.2d 221, 224-27 (Fla.2002)).
Accordingly, BOA’s petition for writ of prohibition is GRANTED.
B.L. THOMAS, WETHERELL, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Residents for a Better Community and Barbara Hinkson Craig v. Wci Cmtys., Inc., 291 So. 3d 632 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)
-
State v. Planned Parenthood OF Sw. & Cent. Fla., Inc., 207 So. 3d 1032 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…(Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (holding that compliance with discovery order to disclose petitioner’s wholly irrelevant financial information in a workers’ compensation claim would cause irreparable harm); cf. Bank of Am., N.A. v. Turkanovic, 2016 WL 7032965, 204 So. 3d 595 (1st DCA Dec. 1, 2016) (granting writ of prohibition and quashing trial court’s order compelling deposition of bank’s corporate representative “in furtherance of [r]espondent’s motion seeking an award of attorney’s fees as a sanction,” where the ban…
-
State v. Choice Plus, LLC, 263 So. 3d 304 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)
Authorities Cited
- Moakley v. Smallwood, 826 So. 2d 221 (Fla. 2002)
- Pino v. The Bank OF NEW York, 121 So. 3d 23 (Fla. 2013)
- Pomeranz & Landsman Corp. v. Miami Marlins Baseball Club, L.P., 143 So. 3d 1182 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)