Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

  • Bloglovin
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • Home
  • Locations
    • Where We Practice in Florida
    • Where We Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Bruce D. Burk
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Steven A. Ochsner
    • Alexis C. Upton
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

June 16, 2017 by admin

Attorney’s fees — Section 57.105 sanctions — Safe harbor — Email service requirements of rule 2.516(b)(1) do not apply to motion for section 57.105 fees, which is only served on opposing party but not filed with court — Conflict certified

42
Fla. L. Weekly D1355e
Top of Form

Attorney’s
fees — Section 57.105 sanctions — Safe harbor — Email service requirements
of rule 2.516(b)(1) do not apply to motion for section 57.105 fees, which is
only served on opposing party but not filed with court — Conflict certified

ISLA BLUE DEVELOPMENT, LLC,
Appellant, v. TRACIE C. MOORE, Appellee. 2nd District. Case No. 2D16-1718.
Opinion filed June 14, 2017. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lee County;
Alane C. Laboda, Judge. Counsel: Gregory W. Goetz of Goetz & Goetz, Fort
Myers, for Appellant. Matthew S. Toll of Toll Law, Cape Coral, for Appellee.

(SLEET, Judge.) Isla Blue
Development, LLC, challenges the trial court’s final order denying its motion
in which it sought attorney fees pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes
(2014), as a sanction against Tracie Moore and her counsel Matthew Toll. The
fees were sought in Moore’s lawsuit against Isla Blue that alleged
nondisclosure of latent defects in a real estate transaction. In its order, the
trial court denied the motion for section 57.105 fees on both procedural and
substantive grounds. Because we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in denying the motion on substantive grounds, we affirm. We write
only to explain that the trial court erred in applying Florida Rule of Judicial
Administration 2.516 to a section 57.105 safe harbor notice and concluding that
the motion should also be denied on procedural grounds.

Section 57.105(4) requires that “[a]
motion by a party seeking sanctions under this section must be served but may
not be filed with or presented to the court unless, within [twenty-one] days
after service of the motion, the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention,
allegation, or denial is not withdrawn or appropriately corrected.” Rule
2.516(b)(1) states that “[a]ll documents required or permitted to be served on
another party must be served by e-mail, unless the parties otherwise
stipulate.” Here, it was undisputed that Isla Blue sent its section 57.105
notice by U.S. mail and that the parties did not stipulate to such service. As
such, the trial court concluded that Isla Blue failed to strictly comply with
the requirements of rule 2.516(b).

However, subsection (a) of rule
2.516 provides as follows:

Unless the
court otherwise orders, or a statute or supreme court administrative order
specifies a different means of service, every pleading subsequent to the
initial pleading and every other document filed in any court proceeding,
except applications for witness subpoenas and documents served by formal notice
or required to be served in the manner provided for service of formal notice,
must be served in accordance with this rule on each party.

(Emphasis added.) “Reading rule
2.516(a) and (b)(1) together, the word ‘documents’ in subsection (b)(1) is
confined in meaning to ‘document[s] filed in any court proceeding.’ ” Boatright
v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.
, 42 Fla. L. Weekly D842, D843 (Fla. 2d DCA Apr.
12, 2017) (alteration in original).

And the specific language of section
57.105(4) states that the motion which provides the required twenty-one-day
safe harbor notice “must be served but may not be filed with or presented to
the court.” Accordingly, such a motion is only served on the opposing party but
is not filed with the court, unlike the documents addressed in rule 2.516(a).
Therefore, we conclude that the email service requirements of rule 2.516(b)(1)
do not apply to such a motion. See Boatright, 42 Fla. L. Weekly
at D843 (“[B]ecause rule 2.516(a) expressly confines its scope to the service
of documents ‘filed in any court proceeding,’ we are compelled to read the rule
as excluding documents which are not ‘filed in any court proceeding.’
”).

In so concluding, we certify
conflict with Matte v. Caplan, 140 So. 3d 686 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014), in
which the Fourth District applied the email requirements of rule 2.516 to a
section 57.105 motion served to provide the required twenty-one-day safe harbor
notice.

Affirmed; conflict certified.
(SILBERMAN and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.)

* * *

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Blog Archives

  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013

Footer

The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2021 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982