42
Fla. L. Weekly D2223aTop of Form
Fla. L. Weekly D2223aTop of Form
Attorney’s
fees — Section 57.105 sanctions — Trial court properly denied motion for
attorney’s fees under sections 57.105 and 163.3215(6) where, although
plaintiff’s claims were tenuous, there was at least an arguable basis for
plaintiff’s claims — Merely losing a case is not a basis for sanctions under
section 57.105, and this decision is guided by the need to apply section 57.105
with restraint so as not to risk chilling access to the courts — Order
granting sanction fees for other plaintiffs is reversed where the claims at
issue were jointly filed by all plaintiffs and were the same claims as those
for which the trial court properly denied sanctions, and the statement by
counsel for plaintiffs did not amount to a concession that he knew or should
have known plaintiffs’ claims were unsupported by material facts or existing law
fees — Section 57.105 sanctions — Trial court properly denied motion for
attorney’s fees under sections 57.105 and 163.3215(6) where, although
plaintiff’s claims were tenuous, there was at least an arguable basis for
plaintiff’s claims — Merely losing a case is not a basis for sanctions under
section 57.105, and this decision is guided by the need to apply section 57.105
with restraint so as not to risk chilling access to the courts — Order
granting sanction fees for other plaintiffs is reversed where the claims at
issue were jointly filed by all plaintiffs and were the same claims as those
for which the trial court properly denied sanctions, and the statement by
counsel for plaintiffs did not amount to a concession that he knew or should
have known plaintiffs’ claims were unsupported by material facts or existing law
MINTO PBLH, LLC, Appellant, v. 1000
FRIENDS OF FLORIDA, INC., ALERTS OF PBC, INC., ROBERT SCHUTZER and KAREN
SCHUTZER, Appellees. 4th District. Case No. 4D16-4218. October 18, 2017. Appeal
and cross-appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit,
Palm Beach County; Donald W. Hafele, Judge; L.T. Case No. 14CA014424. Counsel:
Amy Taylor Petrick, Tara W. Duhy and Kathryn B. Rossmell of Lewis Longman &
Walker, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant. Robert N. Hartsell, Sarah M.
Hayter and Heidi M. Mehaffey of Robert N. Hartsell, P.A., Pompano Beach, for
Appellee 1000 Friends of Florida, Inc. Ralf Brooks of Ralf Brooks Attorney,
Cape Coral, for Appellees Alerts of PBC, Inc., Robert Schutzer and Karen
Schutzer. Preston Robertson, Tallahassee, for Amicus Curiae Florida Wildlife
Federation.
FRIENDS OF FLORIDA, INC., ALERTS OF PBC, INC., ROBERT SCHUTZER and KAREN
SCHUTZER, Appellees. 4th District. Case No. 4D16-4218. October 18, 2017. Appeal
and cross-appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit,
Palm Beach County; Donald W. Hafele, Judge; L.T. Case No. 14CA014424. Counsel:
Amy Taylor Petrick, Tara W. Duhy and Kathryn B. Rossmell of Lewis Longman &
Walker, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant. Robert N. Hartsell, Sarah M.
Hayter and Heidi M. Mehaffey of Robert N. Hartsell, P.A., Pompano Beach, for
Appellee 1000 Friends of Florida, Inc. Ralf Brooks of Ralf Brooks Attorney,
Cape Coral, for Appellees Alerts of PBC, Inc., Robert Schutzer and Karen
Schutzer. Preston Robertson, Tallahassee, for Amicus Curiae Florida Wildlife
Federation.
(TAYLOR, J.) The plaintiffs below,
1000 Friends of Florida, Alerts of PBC, and Robert and Karen Schutzer,
unsuccessfully brought this case to challenge the consistency of certain
Development Orders with the County’s Comprehensive Plan. The
intervenor-defendant, Minto PBLH, LLC, now appeals an order denying its motion
for attorney’s fees under both section 57.105 and section 163.3215(6), Florida
Statutes, as to one of the plaintiffs, 1000 Friends. The other plaintiffs,
Alerts and the Schutzers, and their counsel, Ralf Brookes, cross-appeal an
order sanctioning them pursuant to section 57.105. We affirm as to the main
appeal, and reverse as to the cross-appeal.
1000 Friends of Florida, Alerts of PBC, and Robert and Karen Schutzer,
unsuccessfully brought this case to challenge the consistency of certain
Development Orders with the County’s Comprehensive Plan. The
intervenor-defendant, Minto PBLH, LLC, now appeals an order denying its motion
for attorney’s fees under both section 57.105 and section 163.3215(6), Florida
Statutes, as to one of the plaintiffs, 1000 Friends. The other plaintiffs,
Alerts and the Schutzers, and their counsel, Ralf Brookes, cross-appeal an
order sanctioning them pursuant to section 57.105. We affirm as to the main
appeal, and reverse as to the cross-appeal.
The standard of review of a trial
court’s decision on entitlement to section 57.105(1) attorney’s fees is
generally abuse of discretion. Lago v. Kame By Design, LLC, 120 So. 3d
73, 74 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). “However, to the extent a trial court’s order on
fees is based on an issue of law, this court applies de novo review.” Id.
court’s decision on entitlement to section 57.105(1) attorney’s fees is
generally abuse of discretion. Lago v. Kame By Design, LLC, 120 So. 3d
73, 74 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). “However, to the extent a trial court’s order on
fees is based on an issue of law, this court applies de novo review.” Id.
Section 57.105(1), Florida Statutes
(2016), states that a court “shall award a reasonable attorney’s fee” to the
prevailing party on any claim or defense in which the court finds that:
(2016), states that a court “shall award a reasonable attorney’s fee” to the
prevailing party on any claim or defense in which the court finds that:
the losing
party or the losing party’s attorney knew or should have known that a claim or
defense when initially presented to the court or at any time before trial:
party or the losing party’s attorney knew or should have known that a claim or
defense when initially presented to the court or at any time before trial:
(a) Was
not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the claim or
defense; or
not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the claim or
defense; or
(b) Would
not be supported by the application of then-existing law to those material
facts.
not be supported by the application of then-existing law to those material
facts.
§ 57.105(1)(a)-(b), Fla. Stat.
(2016).
(2016).
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. Kowallek v. Rehm, 189 So. 3d 262, 263-64 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2016). Courts must apply section 57.105 “with restraint to ensure that it
serves its intended purpose of discouraging baseless claims without casting a
chilling effect on use of the courts.” MacAlister v. Bevis Constr., Inc.,
164 So. 3d 773, 776 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted).
law and fact for a party’s claim, a trial court may not sanction that party
under section 57.105. Kowallek v. Rehm, 189 So. 3d 262, 263-64 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2016). Courts must apply section 57.105 “with restraint to ensure that it
serves its intended purpose of discouraging baseless claims without casting a
chilling effect on use of the courts.” MacAlister v. Bevis Constr., Inc.,
164 So. 3d 773, 776 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Merely losing a case is not a basis
for sanctions under section 57.105. Cullen v. Marsh, 34 So. 3d 235, 242
(Fla. 3d DCA 2010). Similarly, a court’s finding that a party’s interpretation
of a legal document is incorrect “does not mean that the other party is
necessarily entitled to section 57.105 fees.” Peyton v. Horner, 920 So.
2d 180, 183 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006).
for sanctions under section 57.105. Cullen v. Marsh, 34 So. 3d 235, 242
(Fla. 3d DCA 2010). Similarly, a court’s finding that a party’s interpretation
of a legal document is incorrect “does not mean that the other party is
necessarily entitled to section 57.105 fees.” Peyton v. Horner, 920 So.
2d 180, 183 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006).
For purposes of this opinion, we
decline to address in detail the lengthy factual and procedural history of this
case. Here, it is sufficient to note that, although the plaintiffs’ claims were
tenuous with respect to the alleged inconsistency between the Comprehensive
Plan and the college and hotel uses authorized in the Development Orders, there
was at least an arguable basis for the plaintiffs’ claims.
decline to address in detail the lengthy factual and procedural history of this
case. Here, it is sufficient to note that, although the plaintiffs’ claims were
tenuous with respect to the alleged inconsistency between the Comprehensive
Plan and the college and hotel uses authorized in the Development Orders, there
was at least an arguable basis for the plaintiffs’ claims.
Our decision is not intended to
suggest that the plaintiffs’ claims were persuasive. Minto’s position that the
Development Orders were consistent with the Comprehensive Plan was eventually
determined to be correct when this court affirmed the final summary judgment in
favor of Minto. See 1000 Friends of Fla. v. City of Westlake, 4D16-1730,
2017 WL 2290974 (Fla. 4th DCA May 25, 2017).
suggest that the plaintiffs’ claims were persuasive. Minto’s position that the
Development Orders were consistent with the Comprehensive Plan was eventually
determined to be correct when this court affirmed the final summary judgment in
favor of Minto. See 1000 Friends of Fla. v. City of Westlake, 4D16-1730,
2017 WL 2290974 (Fla. 4th DCA May 25, 2017).
Nonetheless, while the plaintiffs’
contentions were not particularly strong and were ultimately determined to be
incorrect, we affirm the trial court’s denial of sanctions against 1000 Friends
under section 57.105.1 Our decision is guided by the need to
apply section 57.105 with restraint. To rule otherwise would risk chilling
access to the courts. For example, if Minto’s argument were taken to its
logical extreme, a losing party would be subject to sanctions under section
57.105 every time a court found that a statute or legal document was
unambiguous and that the losing party’s interpretation was incorrect.
contentions were not particularly strong and were ultimately determined to be
incorrect, we affirm the trial court’s denial of sanctions against 1000 Friends
under section 57.105.1 Our decision is guided by the need to
apply section 57.105 with restraint. To rule otherwise would risk chilling
access to the courts. For example, if Minto’s argument were taken to its
logical extreme, a losing party would be subject to sanctions under section
57.105 every time a court found that a statute or legal document was
unambiguous and that the losing party’s interpretation was incorrect.
On cross-appeal, we reverse the
sanctions order as to the cross-appellants because (1) the claims at issue were
jointly filed by all plaintiffs and were the same claims for which the trial
court refused to sanction 1000 Friends, (2) as explained above, the claims at
issue were not completely unsupported by material fact or existing law, and (3)
the statement by counsel for the cross-appellants, upon which the trial court
based the sanctions order, did not amount to a concession that he knew or
should have known those claims were unsupported by material facts or existing
law.
sanctions order as to the cross-appellants because (1) the claims at issue were
jointly filed by all plaintiffs and were the same claims for which the trial
court refused to sanction 1000 Friends, (2) as explained above, the claims at
issue were not completely unsupported by material fact or existing law, and (3)
the statement by counsel for the cross-appellants, upon which the trial court
based the sanctions order, did not amount to a concession that he knew or
should have known those claims were unsupported by material facts or existing
law.
In sum, we affirm the denial of fees
in the main appeal, and reverse the order granting fees in the cross-appeal.
in the main appeal, and reverse the order granting fees in the cross-appeal.
Affirmed as to main appeal; Reversed
as to cross-appeal. (MAY and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.)
as to cross-appeal. (MAY and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.)
__________________
1Moreover,
the trial court properly denied sanctions against 1000 Friends under section
163.3215(6), Florida Statutes, as Minto did not make a showing that the
plaintiffs’ claims were brought for an improper purpose.
the trial court properly denied sanctions against 1000 Friends under section
163.3215(6), Florida Statutes, as Minto did not make a showing that the
plaintiffs’ claims were brought for an improper purpose.
* * *Bottom of Form