H.J.J., INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
PARTY PRODUCTIONS, II, INC. AND FRED D. PRODUCTIONS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
H.J.J., Inc. appealed an award of attorneys' fees under Florida Statute § 57.105(1) to defendants who prevailed on summary judgment in a fraudulent transfer case. The court reversed, holding that the plaintiff's complaint raised justiciable issues of law and fact at inception, making sanctions inappropriate regardless of the ultimate outcome.
The court reversed the attorneys' fees award, holding that the timing for determining whether a complaint lacks justiciable issues is at the time of filing, not after discovery or summary judgment. Since H.J.J.'s complaint raised justiciable issues of law and fact when filed, § 57.105(1) sanctions were inappropriate regardless of subsequent developments.
[1] Attorneys' fees under Section 57.105(1), Florida Statutes, are inappropriate if the complaint raises justiciable issues of law or fact at the time of filing.
[2] The determination of whether a complaint lacks justiciable issues for the purpose of awarding attorneys' fees is made at the time the complaint is initially filed.
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“The determination as to whether a complaint is completely lacking in justiciable issues of law or fact is made at the time the complaint is initially filed.”
Establishes the controlling legal standard that § 57.105(1) sanctions are evaluated at complaint inception, not after subsequent developments.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceH.J.J. obtained a judgment against Party Productions II, Inc. (PPII) in a breach of contract action. Before satisfaction, PPII was involuntarily disso…
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 Fraudulent Transfer cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
H.J.J., Inc. (“HJJ”), the plaintiff below, appeals an order granting attorneys’ fees to the appellees, Party Productions II, Inc. (“PPII”) and-Fred D. Productions, Inc. (“FDP”). Because HJJ’s suit involved justiciable issues of law or fact, we reverse.
HJJ obtained a judgment against PPII in a breach of contract action. Two months later, and before the judgment had been satisfied, PPII was involuntarily dissolved. The two sole stockholders and officers of PPII were then hired by their father to operate a new business, FDP. FDP occupied the same premises that PPII previously occupied and engaged in business activities similar to those previously engaged in by PPII. FDP also acquired many of PPII’s former assets and liabilities.
In an effort to execute the unsatisfied judgment, HJJ sued both PPII and FDP claiming that PPII fraudulently transferred its assets to FDP in order to avoid paying its debt and that FDP is ultimately responsible for PPII’s debt to HJJ. HJJ subsequently dismissed PPII from the suit and FDP prevailed on its motion for summary judgment. See H.J.J., Inc. v. Party Productions II, Inc., 712 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). Shortly thereafter, PPII and FDP filed a joint motion for attorneys’ fees pursuant to Section 57.105(1), Florida Statutes (1997). Their motion was granted and this appeal followed.
Section 57.105(1) 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 ... of the losing party; ...
The determination as to whether a complaint is completely lacking in justiciable issues of law or fact is made at the time the complaint is initially filed. See Schwartz v. W-K Partners, 530 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). If the complaint passes muster at that point, Section 57.105(1) sanctions are inappropriate regardless of subsequent developments. See Schwartz v. W-K Partners, 530 So. 2d at 457; Klein v. Layne, Inc. of Florida, 453 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Sepner v. Village of Royal Palm Beach, 444 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).
Here, HJJ’s complaint involved justiciable issues of law or fact at its inception. The record indicates a clear connection between PPII and FDP, including a substantial transfer of assets, warranting the initiation of suit and discovery. Although discovery subsequently revealed that PPII and FDP were entitled to a judgment as a matter of law, it cannot be said that HJJ’s complaint was completely lacking in justiciable issues of law or fact at the time it was filed. See § 57.105(1), Fla. Stat. (1997). Accordingly, the trial court’s award of attorneys’ fees to PPII and FDP is reversed.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Langford v. Ferrera, 823 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…lopments that render the claim without justi-ciable merit in law or fact should not subject the losing party to attorney’s fees. See id.; Schwartz v. W-K Partners, 530 So. 2d 456, 457 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); H.J.J., Inc. v. Party Productions, II, Inc., 738 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). In view of such precedents, Albritton’s claim presented two justiciable issues. Addressing, first, whether Albrit-ton presented, a justiciable defense of es-toppel, we conclude he did. A party presents a justiciable defense of e…
-
Arenas v. City OF Coleman, 791 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…tack, 783 So. 2d 1138, 1141 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). As a result, a party could not be sanctioned under the 1997 version of section 57.105 when the lawsuit was not frivolous when filed, but became frivolous later. H.J.J., Inc. v. Party Prods., II, Inc., 738 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999).1 The fact that the City voluntarily dismissed its lawsuit does not automatically allow for attorney’s fees as argued by Arenas. “The frivolousness of a claim or a defense is to be judged and determined as of the time it is initia…
-
Augustine Cardona v. Benton Express, Inc., 804 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…s to whether a complaint is completely lacking in justiciable issues of law or fact is made at the time the complaint is initially filed.” See Schwartz v. W-K Partners, 530 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); H.J.J., Inc. v. Party Productions, II, Inc., 738 So. 2d 515, 516 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). Even after the statute was amended effective October 1, 1999, it was improper to assess attorney’s fees against Cardona. The trial court denied fees against Cardo-na’s counsel, arguably the only one that could be accused of…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Schwartz v. W-K P'rs, 530 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)
- Klein v. Layne, 453 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Sepner v. Vill. OF Royal Palm Beach, 444 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Harris v. State, 712 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
- H.J.J., Inc. v. Party Prods., II, Inc., 712 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)