42
Fla. L. Weekly D1355eTop of Form
Fla. L. Weekly D1355eTop 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
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.
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.
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).
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:
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.
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).
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.’
”).
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.
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.)
(SILBERMAN and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.)
* * *