157 So. 3d 447
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2015Background
- Johanna Faddis sued the City of Homestead; her attorney was Kelsay Patterson. The trial court found Faddis committed a fraud on the court, dismissed her complaint, and entered sanctions including a $166,000 award to appellees.
- This court previously affirmed the trial-court dismissal for fraud on the court in a prior appeal. Patterson continued to represent Faddis and appealed the sanctions order in the present appeal.
- The trial court made detailed factual findings that Faddis gave inconsistent sworn testimony (denying then later claiming sexual harassment) and that Patterson knew of those inconsistencies and engaged in vexatious conduct and bad faith.
- The appellate court issued a sua sponte order to show cause why appellate fees should not be awarded under Fla. Stat. §57.105 for pursuing a frivolous appeal.
- The court concluded Patterson alone should pay appellate attorney’s fees under §57.105(1)(b) for advancing a frivolous appeal, dismissed Patterson’s separate appeal for lack of proper notice, and remanded to the trial court to determine the amount.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by dismissing the complaint as fraud on the court without an evidentiary hearing | The dismissal was improper ab initio; needed an evidentiary hearing | Issue already litigated and decided in the prior appeal | Barred by res judicata; prior appeal resolved the dismissal issue |
| Whether sanctions against Faddis were improper for lack of express factual findings of bad faith | Faddis argued the trial court failed to make explicit bad-faith findings | Trial court made detailed factual findings demonstrating bad faith and vexatious conduct | Denied; trial court’s findings sufficiently demonstrate bad faith |
| Whether sanctions against Patterson were improper and whether he properly appealed the sanction | Patterson challenged the monetary sanction against him on its merits | Patterson did not name himself in the notice of appeal and lacked standing to appeal in his own right; record shows knowledge of false testimony and vexatious conduct | Patterson’s challenge to his sanction fails; additionally, his appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction for failure to name himself |
| Whether appellate fees should be awarded under §57.105 for pursuing a frivolous appeal | Appellant contended the appeal was proper | Appellees sought fees under §57.105(1)(b) because the appeal was frivolous and not supported by then-existing law applied to the facts | Court ordered appellate attorney fees against Patterson under §57.105(1)(b) and remanded to trial court to fix the amount |
Key Cases Cited
- Faddis v. City of Homestead, 121 So. 3d 1134 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (prior appeal affirming dismissal for fraud on the court)
- Fla. Dept. of Transp. v. Juliano, 801 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 2001) (res judicata bars relitigation of issues that were or could have been raised)
- Due v. Tallahassee Theatres, Inc., 160 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964) (notice of appeal must identify the appealing party to confer jurisdiction)
- Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 487 U.S. 312 (U.S. 1988) (failure to name a party in a notice of appeal is a failure to appeal)
- Shortes v. Hill, 860 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (attorney discipline and sanctions can be supported by rules protecting confidence in the judicial system)