LAW OFFICES OF ALEXANDER E. BORELL, P.A.
v.
IN RE: JESUS CALA ACEVEDO V. HERGA IMPERIOD NODA
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.
Law Offices of Alexander E. Borell appeals orders granting sanctions under Florida Statute section 57.105, denying relief from sanctions, and awarding attorney's fees and costs. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the attorney's fees award but reversed the costs award, finding that section 57.105(1) does not authorize an award of costs.
The court affirmed the award of attorney's fees under section 57.105(1), as the trial court did not abuse its discretion. However, the court reversed the award of costs, holding that section 57.105(1) does not authorize an award of costs.
[1] Section 57.105(1) authorizes an award of attorney's fees for sanctions but does not authorize an award of costs.
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 intelligenceJesus Cala Acevedo brought an action against Herga Noda and others. Borell represented Noda in the litigation. Acevedo moved for sanctions under secti…
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 Trial Court Findings cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed July 14, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________ No. 3D20-0691 Lower Tribunal No. 17-1986 ________________ Law Offices of Alexander E. Borell, P.A.,
Appellant,
vs.
In re: Jesus Cala Acevedo vs Herga Imperiod Noda, et al., Appellees.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Valerie R. Manno Schurr and Daryl E. Trawick, Judges. Law Office of Alexander E. Borell, P.A., and Alexander E. Borell and Vanessa Jaleh Bravo, for appellant. The Law Offices of Mario G. Menocal, P.A., and Mario G. Menocal, for appellee Jesus Cala Acevedo. Before SCALES, LINDSEY, and MILLER, JJ. PER CURIAM.
The Law Offices of Alexander Borell (“Borell”), counsel for defendant below, Herga Noda, in an action brought by plaintiff below, Jesus Cala Acevedo, appeals one order granting Acevedo’s motion for sanctions pursuant to section 57.105, a second order denying Borell’s motion for relief from the sanctions award, and a third order awarding attorney’s fees and costs.
“[T]he award of attorney’s fees is a matter committed to sound judicial discretion which will not be disturbed on appeal, absent a showing of clear abuse of discretion.” Lanson v. Reid, 314 So. 3d 385, 386 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (quotation omitted). “The trial court’s finding must be based upon substantial competent evidence presented to the court at the hearing on attorney’s fees or otherwise before the court and in the trial court record.”
Weatherby Assocs. Inc. v. Ballack, 783 So. 2d 1138, 1141 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (citation omitted); accord Lanson, 314 So. 3d at 387. “When there are issues of fact . . . [and] [w]ithout a record of the trial proceedings, the appellate court can not properly resolve the underlying factual issues so as to conclude that the trial court’s judgment is not supported by the evidence or by an alternative theory.” Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979).
We are constrained by the record before us. Borell has not provided a transcript of any of the hearings conducted in the trial court, and thus the trial court’s findings must be presumed correct. See Lanson, 314 So. 3d at 388 n.4 (citing Applegate, 377 So. 2d at 1152).
As such, we can find no abuse of discretion by the lower court in awarding attorney’s fees under section 57.105. However, nothing in the text of section 57.105(1) provides for the award of costs. See In re Estate of Assimakopoulos, 228 So. 3d 709, 713 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (collecting cases that reverse the award of costs under section 57.105(1)). Accordingly, we reverse that portion of the order awarding costs.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions to strike the award of costs.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Yellow Freight Sys., Inc. v. United States, 538 F.2d 790 (8th Cir. 1976)…ine “building” in terms of both physical appearance and function. Accordingly, we consider both the physical appearance and function of the structures at issue in determining whether they are “buildings” under § 48(a)(1)(B). See Sunnyside Nurseries, 59 T.C. 113, 119 (1972); Arne Thirup, 59 T.C. 122, 127 (1972), rev’d, 508 F. 2d 915 (9th Cir. 1974); Melvin Satrum, 62 T.C. 413, 418-420 (1974) (Judges Dawson, Raum, Drennan and Quealy, dissenting). The docks at issue clearly resemble buildings in their design…
-
Brown-Forman Distillers Corp. v. The United States, 499 F.2d 1263 (Ct. Cl. 1974)…unction or use of the structure. See, for example, Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. United States, supra, and Adolph Coors Co., 27 T.C.M. 1351 (1968). From the foregoing, it can be readily seen that defendant’s reliance on Sunnyside Nurseries, 59 T.C. 113 (1972) is entirely misplaced. There it was held that taxpayer’s greenhouses, while important to the processing of growing plants, were nonetheless “buildings” because of the substantial amount of employee activity which took place in them. They were…
-
Arne Thirup and Pauline Thirup v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue, 508 F.2d 915 (9th Cir. 1974)…s, silos, fractionating towers, blast furnaces, basic oxygen furnaces, coke ovens, brick kilns, and coal tipples. In holding that the appellants’ greenhouses were “buildings,” the Tax Court relied on the reasoning set forth in Sun-nyside Nurseries, 59 T.C. 113 (1972),3 which was a companion case to Thirup and which also involved greenhouses. In Sunnyside, the Court applied two tests in deciding that the greenhouses were “buildings” within section 48. The first test merely involved consideration of the ou…
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
- Pitcher v. Schneider (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Weatherby Assocs., Inc. v. Ballack, 783 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- In re Est. OF Paula X. Assimakopoulos v. Nicolle Assimakopoulos-Panuthos, 228 So. 3d 709 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)
- Viera v. In re Aptito, 314 So. 3d 385 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)