ASTRA REAL ESTATE, LLC
v.
RACHEL ELKARIF
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.
Attorney's fees under section 57.105 should not be imposed when a plaintiff dismisses claims that have become moot for reasons unrelated to the merits of the litigation.
[1] Section 57.105 attorney's fees should not be imposed when a plaintiff dismisses claims that become moot for reasons unrelated to the merits of the underlying litigation,…
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“We do not want to penalize plaintiffs 'with a substantial assessment of attorney's fees for recognizing the obvious and dismissing their claims that had become moot for reasons unrelated to the merits of the litigation between the parties.'”
The court's explanation of the policy underlying section 57.105 and the proper application of attorney's fees provisions
Astra Real Estate, LLC appealed a circuit court decision in a case where claims became moot during litigation. The specific facts underlying the mootn…
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.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Howard K. Coates, Jr., Judge; L.T. Case No. 502018CA004484XXXXMB.
Michael McCormick, Jr. and Kendrick Almaguer of The Ticktin Law Group, Deerfield Beach, for appellant.
Karen M. Sullivan of Karen M. Sullivan, P.A., Margate, for appellee. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Kelly v. Bankunited, FSB, 159 So. 3d 403, 406–07 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (“Where the purpose of section 57.105 is to deter misuse of the judicial system and discourage needless litigation, . . . [w]e do not want to penalize plaintiffs ‘with a substantial assessment of attorney’s fees for recognizing the obvious and dismissing their claims that had become moot for reasons unrelated to the merits of the litigation between the parties.’” (quoting Tubbs v. Mechanik Nuccio Hearne & Wester, P.A., 125 So. 3d 1034, 1042 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013))). WARNER, MAY and CIKLIN, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.