DELTA FIRE SPRINKLERS, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
SOUTHTRUST BANK, N.A., 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.
Delta Fire Sprinklers appealed a trial court's award of attorney's fees to SouthTrust Bank under Florida Statute § 57.105 for pursuing a meritless claim. The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that Delta's continuation of litigation after summary judgment dismissal—including a motion for rehearing and discovery requests—defeated the safe harbor provision and justified the fee award.
SouthTrust was entitled to attorney's fees because Delta's post-service filings—the motion for rehearing and discovery requests—constituted further proceedings that defeated the safe harbor provision. The trial court properly awarded reasonable attorney's fees for work performed after the fee motion was served.
[1] A party may be awarded attorney's fees under section 57.105, Florida Statutes, when a claim is meritless and the party continues to pursue it after the court has rejected…
[2] The "safe harbor" provision of section 57.105(4), Florida Statutes, prevents an award of attorney's fees if no further proceedings are initiated after the motion for fees…
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“If no further proceedings had been initiated by Delta at the trial level, the 'safe harbor' provision set forth in section 57.105(4) would have prevented an award of fees.”
Establishes the baseline rule that the safe harbor provision prevents fee awards absent further proceedings by the non-prevailing party.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDelta Fire Sprinklers sued SouthTrust Bank for payment relating to a construction project. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of SouthT…
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 Safe Harbor Provision cases and more on FLexlaw
EVANDER, J.
We affirm the trial court’s decision awarding appellee, SouthTrust Bank, N.A., attorney’s fees pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2008). SouthTrust and others had been sued by appellant Delta Fire Sprinklers (“Delta”) in an effort to be paid for its work on a construction project.
The record reflects the trial court properly entered summary judgment in favor of SouthTrust on that count of Delta’s complaint directed against SouthTrust. At the time of entry of summary judgment, the trial court granted Delta leave to amend its complaint. Delta thereafter amended its complaint in an attempt to allege a new basis for a claim against SouthTrust. However, for all practical purposes, the amended complaint suffered from the same fatal deficiencies of the prior complaint. The day after the trial court properly dismissed this claim with prejudice,1 SouthTrust served its motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to section 57.105.
If no further proceedings had been initiated by Delta at the trial level, the “safe harbor” provision set forth in section 57.105(4)2 would have prevented an award of fees. O’Daniel v. Board of Commissioners of Monroe County, 916 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). However, Delta continued to pursue its meritless claim by filing a motion for rehearing and propounding a discovery request upon South-Trust. After denying the motion for rehearing, the trial court acted within its discretion in awarding SouthTrust its reasonable attorney’s fees incurred subsequent to the date of service of its motion for attorney’s fees. The record supports the trial court’s conclusion that Delta was merely attempting to relitigate a claim that had already been rejected by the court in its order granting summary judgment.
AFFIRMED.
PLEUS, C.J. and THOMPSON, J., concur. . The trial court’s order of dismissal was affirmed per curiam by this court on August 15, 2006.
. Section 57.105 provides:
(4) A motion by a party seeking sanctions under this section must be served but may not be filed with or presented to the court unless, within 21 days after service of the motion, the challenged paper, claim, de fense, contention, allegation, or denial is not withdrawn or appropriately corrected.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- O'Daniel v. Bd. of Comm'rs of Monroe Cnty., 916 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)