BETHANY REESE
v.
TAMMY MATHIS
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.
An award of attorney's fees under section 57.105 is upheld when the trial court determines, within its sound discretion, that the party or its counsel knew or should have known the claim or defense was not supported by facts or existing law.
[1] An award of attorney's fees under Florida Statute § 57.105 is reviewed for clear abuse of discretion and will be affirmed absent a showing that the trial court acted outs…
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“An award of fees under section 57.105 requires a determination by the court that 'the party or its counsel knew or should have known that the claim or defense asserted was not supported by the facts or an application of existing law.'”
Statement of the legal standard for § 57.105 fee awards, citing Lanson v. Reid.
Bethany Reese appealed a trial court decision awarding attorney's fees to Tammy Mathis under Florida Statute § 57.105. The lower tribunal found that t…
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.
Opinion filed June 29, 2022. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________ No. 3D21-0764 Lower Tribunal No. 14-6503 ________________ Bethany Reese, et al.,
Appellants,
vs.
Tammy Mathis,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Antonio Arzola, Judge. Bowman and Brooke, LLP, and Stephanie M. Simm, and Shawn Y. Libman, for appellants. Alexander Appellate Law P.A., and Samuel Alexander (DeLand), for appellee. Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and LINDSEY, and BOKOR, JJ. PER CURIAM.
“An award of fees under section 57.105 requires a determination by the court that ‘the party or its counsel knew or should have known that the claim or defense asserted was not supported by the facts or an application of existing law.’” Lanson v. Reid, 314 So. 3d 385, 386-87 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (footnote omitted) (quoting Blue Infiniti, LLC v. Wilson, 170 So. 3d 136, 140 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)). “[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.” Id. at 386 (alteration in original) (quoting DiStefano Constr., Inc. v. Fid. & Deposit Co., 597 So. 2d 248, 250 (Fla. 1992)). Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- DiSTEFANO Constr., Inc. v. Fid. & Deposit Co. OF Md., 597 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 1992)
- Blue Infiniti, LLC v. Wilson, 170 So. 3d 136 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)
- Viera v. In re Aptito, 314 So. 3d 385 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)