MERFE CONSTRUCTION CORP.
v.
MIRTHA MORALES
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.
A trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying attorney's fees under section 57.105 when the losing party's arguments, though unsuccessful, have an arguable basis in law and fact.
[1] Under section 57.105, a trial court may not sanction a party where there is an arguable basis in law and fact for the party's claim, and courts must apply the statute wit…
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“Where there is an arguable basis in law and fact for a party's claim, a trial court may not sanction that party under section 57.105. Courts must apply section 57.105 'with restraint to ensure that it serves its intended purpose of discouraging baseless claims without casting a chilling effect on use of the courts.'”
Court explaining the proper application of section 57.105 sanctions
Merfe Construction Corp. appealed a trial court's denial of its motion for attorney's fees under section 57.105 in a case involving a deficiency judgm…
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 Foreclosure Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed October 16, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D23-1292 Lower Tribunal No. 08-40150
________________
Merfe Construction Corp., Appellant,
vs.
Mirtha Morales, Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Peter R. Lopez, Judge.
Law Office of Michael Garcia Petit, P.A., and Michael Garcia Petit (Miramar), for appellant.
Louis C. Arslanian (Hollywood), for appellee.
Before LOGUE, C.J., and EMAS and SCALES, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
2
“A trial court's denial of a motion for attorney’s fees under section 57.105 is reviewed for abuse of discretion.” Frischer v. Quintana, 151 So. 3d 491, 492 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014). While Appellee unsuccessfully argued that issues with the deficiency judgment and underlying foreclosure judgment rendered the judgments void, as opposed to voidable, these arguments were “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.” Id. “Where there is an arguable basis in law and fact for a party’s claim, a trial court may not sanction that party under section 57.105. Courts must apply section 57.105 ‘with restraint to ensure that it serves its intended purpose of discouraging baseless claims without casting a chilling effect on use of the courts.’” Minto PBLH, LLC v. 1000 Friends of Fla., Inc., 228 So. 3d 147, 149 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (internal citations omitted). Merely losing a case is not a basis for sanctions under section 57.105. See MC Liberty Express, Inc. v. All Points Servs., Inc., 252 So. 3d 397, 404 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018); Cullen v. Marsh, 34 So. 3d 235, 242 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Fernandez v. State, 252 So. 3d 397 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)
- Gonzalez-Chavez v. State, 34 So. 3d 235 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)