SANS SOUCI GATED HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
v.
OLEG LUKOV
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.
Sans Souci Gated Homeowners Association appealed a circuit court order denying its request for sanctions under Florida Statute § 57.105(1). The appellate court affirmed the denial, holding that while trial courts must make findings of frivolity to award sanctions, they need not make express findings to the contrary when denying such sanctions.
The court affirmed the denial of sanctions, finding no abuse of discretion. The court held that while § 57.105(1) requires findings of frivolity as a prerequisite to awarding sanctions, a trial court need not make express findings to the contrary when denying such sanctions.
[1] A trial court need not issue explicit findings of non-frivolity when denying a motion for sanctions under Florida Statute § 57.105(1); an implicit determination that the…
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 intelligenceSans Souci Gated Homeowners Association filed a lawsuit against Oleg Lukov and others in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court. The Association subsequently…
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 Entitlement To Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed March 10, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________ No. 3D20-0426 Lower Tribunal No. 13-16521 ________________ Sans Souci Gated Homeowners Association, Inc.,
Appellant,
vs.
Oleg Lukov, et al., Appellees.
An appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Barbara Areces, Judge. Law Offices of Blynn and Blynn, P.A., and Esther T. Blynn; and Ilene F. Tuckfield, P.A., and Ilene F. Tuckfield, for appellant. Law Offices of Paul H. Field, and Paul H. Field; and Law Office of Evan M. Feldman, and Evan M. Feldman, for appellees. Before SCALES, MILLER, and LOBREE, JJ. MILLER, J.
Appellant challenges a final order denying entitlement to sanctions pursuant to section 57.105(1), Florida Statutes. Finding no abuse of discretion in the determination the lawsuit filed below was “supported by the material facts necessary to establish the claim” and “by the application of then-existing law,” we write only to address the sufficiency of the order on appeal. § 57.105(1)(a)-(b), Fla. Stat. Although the law requires a trial court to render findings of frivolity as a prerequisite to awarding fees under the relevant statute, findings to the contrary are not necessary in denying such fees. See § 57.105(1), Fla. Stat.; MC Liberty Express, Inc. v. All Points Servs., Inc., 252 So. 3d 397, 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018); Kurgan v. Morton D.
Weiner/AMPAC, Inc., 49 So. 3d 342, 343 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010); Shortes v. Hill, 860 So. 2d 1, 2 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Mason v. Highlands Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 817 So. 2d 922, 923 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Accordingly, we discern no error and affirm.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Marcellus M. Mason, Jr. v. Highlands Cnty. Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs, 817 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Shortes v. Hill, 860 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
- Fernandez v. State, 252 So. 3d 397 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)
- Kurgan v. Morton D. Weiner/Ampac, Inc., 49 So. 3d 342 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)