PLAYTIME OF BREVARD, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, ET AL, 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.
Playtime sought attorney's fees under Florida Statute 57.105 after obtaining a mandamus order requiring Brevard County to issue an adult entertainment license. The court affirmed the denial of attorney's fees, holding that the County's defenses were not frivolous because the trial court initially ruled in the County's favor on the declaratory and injunctive relief claims.
The court held that the County's defenses were not frivolous and therefore not subject to attorney's fees under section 57.105. A claim or defense is frivolous only if it is so clearly devoid of merit on both facts and law as to be completely untenable, and the fact that the trial court initially ruled in the County's favor on its defenses demonstrates the defenses had merit when presented.
[1] A court shall award attorney's fees to the prevailing party when the court finds a complete absence of a justiciable issue of law or fact raised by the losing party's com…
[2] A claim or defense is frivolous if, at the time it is presented, it is so clearly devoid of merit both on the facts and the law as to be completely untenable.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“A claim or defense is frivolous only if, at the time it is presented, it 'is so clearly devoid of merit both on the facts and the law as to be completely untenable.'”
Establishes the legal standard for determining whether a defense qualifies as frivolous 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 intelligencePlaytime petitioned Brevard County for a license to operate an adult entertainment establishment under County Ordinance 89-19. The ordinance required …
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 Justiciable Issue Of Law Or Fact cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMPSON, Judge.
Playtime of Brevard, Inc. (“Playtime”), appeals the final order denying Playtime’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees from the Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County (“County”) under section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1993). We affirm.
Playtime petitioned Brevard County for a license to operate an adult entertainment establishment pursuant to Brevard County Ordinance 89-19, section 14-142. The ordinance provided that the application was to be approved or denied within 90 days, with notice of the decision to the applicant by certified mail. When no action was taken on Playtime’s application, Playtime filed a civil suit seeking declaratory relief, a writ of mandamus, and a motion for temporary injunction. The trial court dismissed the suit for declaratory relief and denied the motion for injunctive relief. However, the court issued an alternative writ of mandamus commanding the County Planning and Development Service Department either to issue a license to Playtime or to file defenses in the court within 20 days. After motions were filed by the County, the trial court ordered the County to immediately issue a license to Playtime.
After the trial court denied the County’s motion for rehearing, Playtime moved for attorney’s fees, arguing the County raised no justiciable issue of law or fact as to its failure to act on Playtime’s application within the prescribed 90 days. The court denied the motion and Playtime appealed.
Subsection 57.105(1), Florida Statutes (1995), authorizing awards of attorney’s fees for frivolous claims or defenses, provides in pertinent part:
The court shall award a reasonable attorney’s fee to be paid to the prevailing party in equal amounts by the losing party and the losing party’s attorney in any civil action in which the court finds that there was a complete absence of a justiciable issue of either law or fact raised by the complaint or defense of the losing party....
A claim or defense is frivolous only if, at the time it is presented, it “is so clearly devoid of merit both on the facts and the law as to be completely untenable.” Allen v. Estate of Dutton, 384 So. 2d 171, 175 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 392 So. 2d 1373 (Fla.1980). Accord, Schwartz v. W-K Partners, 530 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). In the instant case, the County successfully defended against Playtime’s claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. Although the appellate record does not reflect the nature of the County’s defenses, the fact that the trial court ruled in the County’s favor indicates that the defenses had merit when they were presented.
AFFIRMED.
PETERSON, C.J., and ANTOON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Carola D. Allen v. Est. of Ellen C. Dutton, 384 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Schwartz v. W-K P'rs, 530 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)