ROBERT A. STOK AND STOK & ASSOCIATES, P.A., APPELLANTS,
v.
DEBORAH ANN MOLLER AND DANIEL S. KAPLAN, APPELLEES
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.
Robert Stok appealed the denial of his motion for attorney's fees under Florida Statute § 57.105 following a dissolution of marriage case. The trial court had granted Stok's summary judgment motion but denied his fee request, and the appellate court reversed, holding that the opposing party's motion to disgorge fees lacked any factual or legal basis and warranted sanctions.
The court held that Stok was entitled to § 57.105 attorney's fees because the Motion to Disgorge Fees had no justiciable basis—the wife's attorney knew or should have known the claim was not supported by facts or law, particularly after the settlement agreement made each party responsible for their own fees.
[1] A motion for attorney's fees under section 57.105, Florida Statutes, should be granted when there is no justiciable issue upon which to base the underlying motion.
[2] A party's attorney is presumed to know or should know that a claim is not supported by the facts or by application of then-existing law to those facts when seeking attorn…
Previewing 2 of 4 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 conclude, however, that the motion for section 57.105 fees should have been granted because there was no justiciable issue upon which to base the Motion to Disgorge Fees.”
Establishes the core holding that lack of a justiciable issue warrants § 57.105 sanctions regardless of bad faith motive
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring dissolution litigation, the trial court ordered that if the husband paid his attorney fees, he must pay an equal amount for wife's counsel. The…
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 Justiciable Issue cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Robert A. Stok seeks to reverse a final order denying his motion for fees pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2003). We reverse.
During the course of dissolution litigation between Mogens Moller [Husband] and Deborah Ann Moller [Wife], the trial court issued an order on October 11, 2001, which stated, in pertinent part, that “if the husband pays attorney fees for himself, he shall pay the same amount for wife’s counsel.” [R.324]. Thereafter, the Husband’s sister paid for her brother’s attorney’s fees owed to his counsel, Robert A. Stok. Learning of this the Wife, through her counsel, Daniel S. Kaplan, filed a Motion to Disgorge Fees from Stok. Ultimately, the parties entered into a mediated settlement agreement, pursuant to which each party agreed to be responsible for his or her own attorney’s fees. The trial court entered final judgment in March 2003, adopting and ratifying the settlement agreement, but reserving jurisdiction to rule on the still pending motion to disgorge fees.
Stok filed a motion for summary judgment and a motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to section 57.105, asserting that the still-pending Motion to Disgorge Fees was not supported by the facts or then existing law. The trial court granted Stok’s summary judgment motion but denied the motion for fees on the basis that the Motion to Disgorge Fees paid to Stok by the sister was not filed in bad faith.
We conclude, however, that the motion for section 57.105 fees should have been granted because there was no justiciable issue upon which to base the Motion to Disgorge Fees. The Wife’s attorney knew or should have known that the claim as contained in the Motion to Disgorge Fees was not supported by the facts or by application of then existing law to those facts. After the parties agreed pursuant to the mediated settlement agreement to be responsible for their own fees there was no factual or legal basis for pursuit of the Motion to Disgorge Fees.
Accordingly the trial court’s August 11, 2003 Order denying Stok’s motion for section 57.105 sanctions is reversed. The cause is remanded with instructions to grant Stok’s motion seeking section 57.105 attorney’s fees.