MARIO FREIXAS, APPELLANT,
v.
BUENA VISTA LAKES CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Mario Freixas appealed a summary judgment entered against him in favor of the Buena Vista Lakes Condominium Association. The court affirmed the summary judgment, finding no genuine issue of material fact and noting that Freixas's position contradicted his sworn testimony in a prior related lawsuit. The court reversed the trial court's denial of attorney's fees and remanded for an award of fees under Florida Statute 57.105.
The trial court correctly entered summary judgment because no genuine issue of material fact existed; Freixas's claimed issue amounted to confusion arising from his contradictory positions. The Association is entitled to an award of attorney's fees under Section 57.105 because the litigation was frivolous and devoid of merit.
[1] A court cannot countenance legal maneuvers and tactics that contradict sworn testimony given in a prior related lawsuit.
[2] A party's position in litigation that is totally devoid of even any arguable merit warrants affirmance of a summary judgment.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The paper "issue" pointed to by Freixas amounts to no more than the problematic confusion created by the fact that the position that he is maintaining in this litigation specifically contradicts the sworn testimony that he gave in a prior related lawsuit.”
Establishes that Freixas's claimed factual dispute was actually a contradiction of his own prior sworn testimony, disqualifying it as a genuine issue of material fact.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFreixas was a third-party plaintiff suing the Buena Vista Lakes Condominium Association. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the Asso…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Attorney'S Fees Entitlement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Mario Freixas [Freixas], the third-party plaintiff below, appeals the trial court’s entry of a Final Summary Judgment in favor of the third-party defendant, the Buena Vista Lakes Condominium Association, Inc. [Association]. Freixas claims that the trial court should not have entered a summary judgment, in connection with his claim against the Association, because of the alleged existence of a genuine issue of material fact. The trial court was eminently correct in determining that no genuine issue of material fact existed. Rather, the paper “issue” pointed to by Freixas amounts to no more than the problematic confusion created by the fact that the position that he is maintaining in this litigation specifically contradicts the sworn testimony that he gave in a prior related lawsuit. The Courts of this State cannot, and in this case did not, countenance such legal maneuvers and tactics.
Finding Freixas’s position to be totally devoid of even any arguable merit, we affirm the Final Summary Judgment entered in favor of the Association and against Freixas.
Turning now to the trial court’s order denying the attorney’s fees sought by the Association pursuant to the provisions of Section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1987), we must disagree with the trial court. Not only do we find the litigation initiated by Freixas against the Association to be devoid of merit and, furthermore, totally lacking even the slightest suggestion of a justiciable issue, we find the said litigation to be frivolous at best and odious at worst. We hold that the Association is clearly entitled to an award of attorney’s fees under Section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1987) and, accordingly, remand this matter to the trial court with directions that attorney’s fees be awarded, under the above-cited statutory section, to the Association.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miri Mayost Visoly and Aviad Visoly v. Sec. Pac. Credit Corp., 768 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…al authority, we conclude that the arguments raised by the Visolys in this appeal are manifestly frivolous. See New England Rare Coin Galleries, Inc. v. Robertson, 506 So. 2d 1161 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Freixas v. Buena Vista Lakes Condominium, Ass’n., 559 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Galbraith v. Inglese, 402 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); T.I.E. Communications, Inc. v. Toyota Motors Center, Inc., 39.1 So. 2d at 697. Accordingly, we grant Security Pacific’s motion for appellate attorney’s fees as a sanction…