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

May 27, 2016 by admin

Attorney’s fees — Trial court abused its discretion when it awarded attorney’s fees pursuant to section 57.105(1) without making detailed findings in its order regarding basis for the fees sanction

41 Fla. L. Weekly D1236aTop of Form

Attorney’s
fees — Trial court abused its discretion when it awarded attorney’s fees
pursuant to section 57.105(1) without making detailed findings in its order
regarding basis for the fees sanction

CLAUTIDE JEAN-PIERRE, JAMES JEAN-PIERRE, and REYNOLD
JEAN-PIERRE, Appellants, v. MADELINE GLABERMAN, Appellee. 4th District. Case
No. 4D15-2582. May 25, 2016. Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth
Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Joel T. Lazarus, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE
12-021433 11. Counsel: James Jean-Francois of James Jean-Francois, P.A.,
Hollywood, for appellants. No brief filed for appellee.

(PER CURIAM.) The homeowners appeal three trial court orders
(1) entering a final judgment of foreclosure in favor of appellee, (2) entering
a writ of bodily attachment against the homeowners, and (3) granting the
appellee’s motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to section 57.105. We affirm the
first two orders without discussion, and reverse the third order because the
trial court failed to make written findings regarding the reasons for granting
the motion.

The underlying dispute in this case involved a mortgage
foreclosure. During the pendency of the case, the appellee filed a motion for
attorney’s fees, pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2015), which was
granted by the trial court, holding the homeowners and their legal counsel
“jointly and severally liable for sanctions in the form of attorney’s fees.”

“Generally, the standard of review of a trial court’s order
awarding section 57.105(1) attorney’s fees is abuse of discretion. However, to
the extent a trial court’s order on fees is based on an issue of law, this
court applies de novo review.” Lago v. Kame By Design, LLC, 120 So. 3d
73, 74 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (citations omitted).

We agree with the homeowners that the trial court erred when
it failed to make detailed findings in its order regarding the basis for the
fees sanction. In Blue Infiniti, LLC v. Wilson, 170 So. 3d 136 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2015), we explained:

Additionally,
the only finding that the trial court made in its order was its “finding the
Civil RICO claim was frivolous.” This falls short of the requirement that the
trial court make detailed and specific findings of bad faith.
“[I]f the trial court concludes that an award of fees under section 57.105 is
an appropriate sanction, ‘it should recite in its order the facts upon which it
bases that conclusion.’ ” Lago, 120 So. 3d at 75 (quoting Regions
Bank v. Gad,
102 So. 3d 666, 667 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)); see also Avis
Rent A Car Sys., Inc. v. Newman,
641 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). It was
therefore error for the trial court to impose sanctions upon Blue Infiniti and
its attorney prior to affording a full opportunity to be heard and without
making detailed findings in its order.

Id. at 140-41. Since there are no
findings of fact in the order on the motion for sanctions in this case, the
order does not fully comply with the requirements of the law. Therefore, we
remand the case for the trial court to make the appropriate findings. See
id.
(reversing and remanding for the trial court to allow for a full
hearing); cf. Bank of New York Mellon v. Kossis, 165 So. 3d 793, 796
(Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (remanding, in a case that required written findings of
fact, for the trial court to make such findings).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. (WARNER,
MAY and CONNER, JJ., concur.)

* *
*

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Blog Archives

  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • 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