MARK W. RICKARD, P.A., ETC.
v.
FERRARI FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., ET AL.
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.
A trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying § 57.105 sanctions when it has implicitly found potential merit to a party's claim by granting that party's motion to intervene.
[1] A trial court's implicit finding of potential merit to a party's claim, evidenced by granting that party's motion to intervene, precludes a finding that opposing counsel…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Where a party reasonably believes the factual basis for its claim exists, it is entitled to proceed with its claims and seek to prove those facts. If attempts to prove those facts are fruitless, that is still not cause for sanctions where the party's initial belief was well-founded.”
Court citing MC Liberty Express, Inc. v. All Points Servs., Inc., 252 So. 3d 397, 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) to support the principle that sanctions are inappropriate when a party had a reasonable initial belief in its claim.
Mark W. Rickard, P.A. sought attorney's fees sanctions against opposing counsel Saul Ewing LLP under § 57.105, arguing that Ferrari Financial Services…
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 Abuse Of Discretion (Standard Of Review) cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed October1, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D25-0385 Lower Tribunal No. 20-11570-CA-01 ________________
Mark W. Rickard, P.A., etc., Appellant,
vs.
Ferrari Financial Services, Inc., et al., Appellees.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Lourdes Simon, Judge.
Law Guard, and Mark W. Rickard (Plantation), for appellant.
Saul Ewing LLP, and Carmen Contreras-Martinez and Alexandra Spaw, for appellees.
Before SCALES, C.J., and LINDSEY and LOBREE, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
2
Appellant Mark W. Rickard, P.A. appeals the trial court’s February 27, 2025 order denying its motion, filed pursuant to section 57.105 of the Florida Statutes, seeking attorney’s fees as a sanction against opposing counsel, appellee Saul Ewing LLP.1 Appellant argues that section 57.105 sanctions are appropriate in this case because Saul Ewing LLP knew or should have known that its client Ferrari’s claim to surplus proceeds from a foreclosure sale lacked merit. By granting Ferrari’s motion to intervene in the underlying foreclosure action for the limited purpose of pursuing surplus funds, however, the trial court implicitly found some potential merit to Ferrari’s claim. Thus, it would have been incongruous for the trial court both to have granted Ferrari’s intervention motion and to have found that Ferrari did not have a good faith basis for its claim. See MC Liberty Express, Inc. v. All Points Servs., Inc., 252 So. 3d 397, 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (“Where a party reasonably believes the factual basis for its claim exists, it is entitled to proceed with its claims and seek to prove those facts. If attempts to prove
Affirmed.