CIVIL PROCEDURE: SANCTIONS: ATTORNEY’S FEES: TRIAL COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION BY AWARDING ATTORNEY’S FEES AGAINST DEFENDANTS AND THEIR LAWYER FOR FILING A MOTION TO DISMISS AND MAKING ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN WERE UNSUPPORTED BY THE FACTS AND THE LAW AND BY OBSTRUCTING THE DISCOVERY THAT REVEALED THEIR POSITION WAS FRIVOLOUS: TRIAL COURT ERRED BY AWARDING COSTS BECAUSE SECTION 57.105 DOES NOT PROVIDE A MECHANISM FOR RECOVERING COSTS

Case Decision Date: Reviewed by

Pronman v. Styles, ___ So. 3d ___, 40 Fla. L. Weekly D572 (Fla. 4th DCA March 4, 2015)

The appellate court affirmed the imposition of sanctions under Section 57.105, Florida Statutes, because of the existence of competent substantial evidence that the defendants and their lawyer knew or should have known that their motion to dismiss based upon lack of … Click To Read Full Case Law Review...

CIVIL PROCEDURE: SANCTIONS: ATTORNEY’S FEES: SECTION 57.105, FLORIDA STATUTES: TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DENYING MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES BECAUSE POLICE DEPARTMENT KNEW BEFORE FILING THAT ITS FORFEITURE PETITION WAS UNFOUNDED

Case Decision Date: Reviewed by

Ospina v. Miami-Dade Police Department, ___ So. 3d ___, 40 Fla. L. Weekly D498 (Fla. 3d DCA February 25, 2015)

The appellate court reversed an order denying attorney’s fees, under Section 57.105, Florida Statutes, to the plaintiff because the police department knew before filing its forfeiture petition that “[the plaintiff’s] account of his actions and intentions was unrefuted and that … Click To Read Full Case Law Review...

TORTS: DEFAMATION: NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION: NEGLIGENT RETENTION: ABSOLUTE PRIVILEGE: ACTION FOR DEFAMATION BASED UPON ONE LAWYER’S DISPARAGING STATEMENTS ABOUT OPPOSING COUNSEL DURING DEPOSITION OF NONPARTY WITNESS WERE ABSOLUTELY PRIVILEGED: NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS ALSO BARRED BY ABSOLUTE PRIVILEGE; CIVIL PROCEDURE: SANCTIONS: ATTORNEY’S FEES: SECTION 57.105, FLORIDA STATUTES: TRIAL COURT ERRED BY AWARDING ATTORNEY’S FEES AGAINST PLAINTIFFS, ALTHOUGH THEIR ACTION WAS BARRED BY ABSOLUTE PRIVILEGE, BECAUSE PLAINTIFFS ADVANCED A GOOD FAITH ARGUMENT FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW LAW WITH A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF SUCCESS

Case Decision Date: Reviewed by

McCullough v. Kubiak, ___ So. 3d ___, 40 Fla. L. Weekly D457 (Fla. 4th DCA February 18, 2015)

A lawyer and her law firm sued opposing counsel and her law firm for defamation, negligent supervision, and negligent retention, based upon disparaging statements made during the deposition of a nonparty witness. The offending statements allegedly involved “the plaintiffs’ litigation practices … Click To Read Full Case Law Review...

APPEALS: SANCTIONS: SECTION 57.105, FLORIDA STATUTES: ATTORNEY’S FEES: FRIVOLOUS APPEAL: CIVIL PROCEDURE: RES JUDICATA: CLAIM THAT TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR FRAUD ON COURT WITHOUT CONDUCTING EVIDENTIARY HEARING BARRED BY DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA BECAUSE ISSUE WAS DECIDED ADVERSELY TO PLAINTIFF ON APPEAL: CLAIM THAT TRIAL COURT ERRED BY SANCTIONING PLAINTIFF AND HER LAWYER BECAUSE OF ABSENCE OF FINDINGS OF BAD FAITH REFUTED BY RECORD: LAWYER, WHO DID NOT TAKE AN APPEAL, LACKED STANDING TO CHALLENGE TRIAL COURT’S SANCTIONS AGAINST HIM

Case Decision Date: Reviewed by

Faddis v. The City of Homestead, ___ So. 3d ___, 40 Fla. L. Weekly D407 (Fla. 3d DCA February 11, 2015)

“[T]he trial court . . . dismiss[ed] the [plaintiff’s] complaint as a fraud on the court” and imposed $166,000 in sanctions, under Section 57.105, Florida Statutes, against the plaintiff and her lawyer. The appellate court affirmed per curiam and … Click To Read Full Case Law Review...

FAMILY LAW: PETITION TO DETERMINE PATERNITY: SPERM DONOR: CIVIL PROCEDURE: SANCTIONS: ATTORNEY’S FEES: SECTION 57.105, FLORIDA STATUTES: ALTHOUGH SPERM DONOR’S AMENDED PETITION TO DETERMINE PATERNITY WAS DENIED WITH PREJUDICE, TRIAL COURT ERRED BY GRANTING ATTORNEY’S FEES AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 57.105, FLORIDA STATUTES, BECAUSE SPERM DONOR WAS ATTEMPTING TO ADVANCE A NOVEL QUESTION OF LAW

Case Decision Date: Reviewed by

B.W.P. v. A.L.H., ___ So. 3d ___, 40 Fla. L. Weekly D267 (Fla. 2d DCA January 23, 2015)

The appellate court affirmed an order dismissing with prejudice a sperm donor’s amended petition to determine paternity, but the court reversed an order awarding attorney’s fees against the donor as a sanction under Section 57.105, Florida Statutes, because the donor “attempted to … Click To Read Full Case Law Review...