GEORGE R. BROCKWAY AND DOROTHY O. BROCKWAY, APPELLANTS,
v.
TOWN OF GOLFVIEW, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, AND WATTERSON, HYLAND, BAIRD NICHOLS & KLETT, APPELLEES
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.
Taxpayers challenged a town's contract with a law firm as violating Florida statutes regarding budgetary appropriations and debt limits. The trial court declared the action moot and awarded attorney's fees under section 57.105. The appellate court reversed the fee award, finding the lawsuit was not so frivolous and completely untenable as to warrant sanctions.
The court reversed the award of attorney's fees because the record failed to support a finding that the entire action was completely untenable. Although the bond claim was legally far-fetched, the other claims raised issues that were not frivolous enough to justify sanctions.
[1] An award of attorney's fees under section 57.105, Florida Statutes, requires a finding that the lawsuit was so frivolous and devoid of merit, both on the facts and the la…
[2] A lawsuit challenging a municipal contract's validity, based on alleged violations of budgetary appropriation and revenue limitations, raises issues that are not necessar…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“an award of attorney's fees under section 57.105 is only proper where the entire action is so clearly lacking in merit and entirely devoid of even arguable substance as to be completely untenable”
Establishes the stringent legal standard required to award fees under section 57.105
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants were taxpayers in the Town of Golfview who filed suit challenging the town council's contract with a law firm to defend the town in another…
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 Section 57.105 cases and more on FLexlaw
STEVENSON, Judge.
This is an appeal from a final order granting attorney’s fees under section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1993). We reverse the award of fees because the record before this court and in the trial court below fails to support a finding that appellants’ lawsuit was so frivolous and devoid of merit both on the facts and the law as to be completely untenable.
Appellants, taxpayers in the Town of Golf-view, filed a lawsuit challenging the methods and procedures utilized by the Town Council in contracting with a law firm to defend the Town in a lawsuit. Appellant’s suit for declaratory relief challenged the validity of the contract and the Town’s actions and alleged, among other things, that: (1) the contract was not accompanied by a budgetary appropriation (or designated source of payment) as required by section 166.241(3), Florida Statutes; (2) the contract, which was open-ended in nature, would be in excess of the revenues received by the Town in fiscal year 1992/1993 in violation of section 166.241, Florida Statutes; and (3) the contract met the definition of a bond and would subject the citizens of Golfview to improper ad valorem taxation. Appellant’s lawsuit never went to trial because the trial court declared the action moot after the Town approved a new contract with the law firm which addressed some of the very same alleged improprieties raised in the complaint.
While we find appellants’ claim that the indebtedness met the definition of a bond to be legally far-fetched, the other claims and challenges raised issues which were not so frivolous and completely untenable that appellants’ and their attorney should be punished for pursuing the action. We reiterate that an award of attorney’s fees under section 57.105 is only proper where the entire action is so clearly lacking in merit and entirely devoid of even arguable substance as to be completely untenable. See Muckenfuss v. Deltona Corp., 508 So. 2d 340 (Fla.1987).
Our opinion joins a long line of other recent appellate court decisions in-Florida which have reversed awards of attorney’s fees under 57.105 and found that the difficult requirement of showing the complete absence of a justiciable issue simply had not been met. See, e.g., Carnival Leisure Indus. Ltd. v. Arviv, 655 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Carnival Leisure Indus. Ltd. v. Holzman, 660 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Huie v. Dent & Cook, P.A., 635 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Fairview Properties v. Pate Constr. Co., Inc., 638 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Resnick v. County Line Auto Ctr., Inc., 639 So. 2d 1091 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Wiggins v. Southern Management Corp., 629 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Cossio v. World Sav. and Loan Assn., 619 So. 2d 402 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). But we also hasten to warn both litigants and lawyers who would advance frivolous claims that no solace may be taken in the preceding litany of cases because there is no reluctance whatsoever by this court in approving, or even sua sponte imposing attorney’s fee awards under section 57.105 in appropriate cases. See Brahmbhatt v. Allstate Indem. Co., 655 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).
Accordingly, the award of fees under section 57.105 is REVERSED.
GROSS, J., and GROSSMAN, MELVIN BRUCE, Associate JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Roberta Santini, M.D. v. Cleveland Clinic Fla., 65 So. 3d 22 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…ey’s fee awards in the past, and we have specially warned that “there is no reluctance whatsoever by this court in approving, or even sua sponte imposing attorney’s fee awards under section 57.105 in appropriate cases.” Brockway v. Town of Golfview, 675 So. 2d 699, 700 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (emphasis added). Accordingly, we remand this issue to the trial court to properly assess Dr. Santini’s and McCoy’s reasonable attorney’s fees for this appeal and thereafter impose such an award upon Miller. While we are ext…
-
Pappalardo v. Richfield Hospitality Servs., Inc., 790 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…frivolous. See Berman & Feldman v. Winn Dixie, Inc., 684 So. 2d 320, 322-23 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); See also Strothman v. Henderson Mental Health Ctr., Inc., 425 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). This is a heavy burden. See Brockway v. Town of Golfview, 675 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Whether fees should have been awarded in this case depends upon whether the underlying cause of action, which was dismissed by the trial court, was so clearly and obviously lacking as to be untenable. See Slapikas v. Llorente,…
-
Latin Am. Cafeteria, Inc. v. Zales Meats Distribs., Inc., 921 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…a sanction under section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2004), is reversed. See Connelly v. Old Bridge Village Co-Op, Inc., 915 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Mercury Ins. Co. v. Coatney, 910 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); Brockway v. Town of Golfview, 675 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Lambert v. Nelson, 573 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). We affirm the Amended Final Default Judgment with the exception of the attorney’s fees award which is subject to a hearing upon remand to determine the amount. We reverse th…
Authorities Cited
- Muckenfuss v. Deltona Corp., 508 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 1987)
- Huie v. Dent & Cook, P.A., 635 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Carnival Leisure Indus. Ltd. v. Arviv, 655 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Carnival Leisure Indus., Ltd. v. Holzman, 660 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Lenoria Wiggins v. S. Mgmt. Corp., 629 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- Fairview Props., Inc. v. Pate Constr. Co., Inc., 638 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Garish Brahmbhatt v. Allstate Indem. Co., 655 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Resnick v. Cnty. Line Auto Ctr., Inc., 639 So. 2d 1091 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Cossio v. World Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 619 So. 2d 402 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)