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

October 20, 2017 by admin

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

42
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

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.

(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.

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.

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:

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:

(a) Was
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.

§ 57.105(1)(a)-(b), Fla. Stat.
(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).

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 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.

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).

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.

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.

In sum, we affirm the denial of fees
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.)

__________________

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.

* * *Bottom of Form

 

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Blog Archives

  • 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