AMAYA LIGHTING & PLASTERING, LLC
v.
CARLOS ALBERTO ISLA
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.
A trial court may not sanction a party under section 57.105 when there is an arguable basis in law and fact for the party's claim, and merely losing a case on the merits does not justify a fee award.
[1] Under Florida Statute section 57.105, a trial court may not impose sanctions against a party when an arguable basis in law and fact exists for that party's claim, even if…
[2] Section 57.105 sanctions must be applied with restraint to serve their intended purpose of discouraging baseless claims without chilling legitimate use of the courts.
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAmaya Lighting & Plastering, LLC appealed a County Court decision in Miami-Dade County involving a dispute with Carlos Alberto Isla.…
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 Appellate Record Sufficiency cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See O’Neal v. Darling, 321 So. 3d 309, 314 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (quoting Swan Landing Dev., LLC v. First Tenn. Bank Nat. Ass’n, 97 So. 3d 326, 328 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)) (“[S]ection 57.105 must be applied with restraint to ensure that it serves its intended purpose of discouraging baseless claims without casting ‘a chilling effect on use of the courts.’”); Minto PBLH, LLC v. 1000 Friends of Fla., Inc., 228 So. 3d 147, 149 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (“Where there is an arguable basis in law and fact for a party’s claim, a trial court may not sanction that party under section 57.105.”); Cullen v. Marsh, 34 So. 3d 235, 242 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (“[M]erely losing a case on the merits is not a basis for a section 57.105 fee award.”); see also Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) (“[T]he record brought forward by the appellant is inadequate to demonstrate reversible error.”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Pitcher v. Schneider (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Cullen v. Marsh, 34 So. 3d 235 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)
- Minto PBLH, LLC v. 1000 Friends OF Fla., Inc., 228 So. 3d 147 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)
- Swan Landing Dev., LLC v. First Tenn. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 97 So. 3d 326 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)
- Shaquille O'Neal v. Darling, 321 So. 3d 309 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)