DONALD J. BARTON
v.
STEWART J. ANDREWS AND LEDA N. ANDREWS
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.
This appeal involves a long-running real property boundary dispute between Donald J. Barton and Stewart J. Andrews and Leda N. Andrews spanning over eighteen years with numerous prior proceedings. Barton appealed the trial court's denial of his motion for sanctions against the Andrews under Florida Statute section 57.105. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's refusal to impose sanctions.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Barton's motion for sanctions. Given that both sides presented competent evidence supporting their opposing legal theories regarding the boundary, sanctions were not warranted.
[1] An order denying a motion for sanctions under Florida Statute § 57.105 is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
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“the evidence in the record shows both sides had competent evidence to support their opposing legal theories regarding the boundary”
The court's explanation for why sanctions were not warranted despite the protracted litigation.
The case concerns a boundary dispute that has been litigated for over eighteen years with multiple court proceedings and prior appeals. Both parties p…
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 Motion For Sanctions cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed December 15, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________ No. 3D20-1258 Lower Tribunal No. 03-1107-K ________________ Donald J. Barton,
Appellant,
vs.
Stewart J. Andrews and Leda N. Andrews, Appellees.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Monroe County, Sharon I. Hamilton, Judge. Mitchell J. Cook, P.A., and Mitchell J. Cook; W. Sam Holland, for appellant. Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A., and Bard D. Rockenbach (West Palm Beach), for appellees. Before SCALES, LINDSEY, and MILLER, JJ. PER CURIAM.
This appeal involves a real property boundary dispute that began over eighteen years ago. There have been numerous court proceedings and appeals. The remaining issue involves whether the trial court committed reversible error in refusing to impose sanctions against Appellees Stewart and Leda Andrews (Defendants below).
The trial court had before it a motion for sanctions pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2021), filed by Appellant Donald J. Barton (Plaintiff below). In response, the Andrews filed a motion for summary judgment directed at the motion for sanctions. The trial court went on to grant summary judgment in their favor. Barton appeals from that order. We treat the order rendered below as an order denying Barton’s motion for sanctions, which we review under the abuse of discretion standard. See, e.g., Fils-Aime v. Roberson, 273 So. 3d 1112, 1114 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (“An appellate court reviews an order denying a motion for 57.105 sanctions for an abuse of discretion.”).
This was a heavily litigated boundary dispute with experts on both sides. As set forth in the order on appeal, “the evidence in the record shows both sides had competent evidence to support their opposing legal theories regarding the boundary.” We agree. Given the record before us, the trial did not abuse its discretion in denying Barton’s motion for sanctions. We therefore affirm.
Affirmed.