MacAlister v. Beavis Construction, Inc.
164 So. 3d 773
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Bevis Construction, Inc. was involved in a 2004 home construction contract with James and Kathleen DeRosa; Bevis filed an invalid lien and a county court breach action.
- Bevis was unlicensed; Department of Business and Professional Regulation investigated; a cease and desist was issued and the lien was ordered released.
- The county court judgment favored Bevis, but a new trial was ordered; Bevis did not amend and the case was dismissed with reserved fees, no fee evidence presented.
- The DeRosas later sued Bevis and Bevis Construction in circuit court for malicious prosecution, seeking prior county court fees and punitive damages.
- Bevis Construction moved for summary judgment arguing no fees could be recovered from the county court action; the motion was denied.
- A jury found Bevis did not maliciously institute the county court action; Bevis then sought fees under section 57.105, which the trial court granted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bevis is entitled to attorney's fees under 57.105 | MacAlister contends no entitlement under 57.105. | Bevis asserts entitlement for defending the malicious prosecution claim. | Entitlement under 57.105 reversed; no award. |
| Whether the trial court committed an abuse of discretion in determining entitlement | MacAlister argues the court relied on insufficient evidence. | Bevis argues the evidence supported entitlement. | Abuse of discretion; reversed. |
| Whether the record shows malice and damages for malicious prosecution | DeRosas showed lack of probable cause and malice. | Bevis contested the intent and damages evidence. | Record supports malice and damages; however, fee entitlement reversed. |
| Whether prior county court fees could be claimed as damages in the malicious-prosecution action | Fees might be recoverable as damages in the malicious-prosecution action. | Fees were already considered in the county court, precluding recovery. | Disputed; court ultimately found entitlement improper and reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mason v. Highlands Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 817 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (section 57.105 requires restraint in awarding fees)
- Swan Landing Dev., LLC v. First Tenn. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 97 So. 3d 326 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (avoid chilling effect of fee statutes)
- Olson v. Johnson, 961 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (malice and damages elements in malicious-prosecution claim)
- Siegel v. Rowe, 71 So. 3d 205 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (material facts sufficient to establish claim; 57.105 analysis)
- Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Mancusi, 632 So.2d 1352 (Fla. 1994) (malice may be inferred from lack of probable cause or other conduct)
- Hutchison v. Tompkins, 259 So.2d 129 (Fla. 1972) (nominal damages may be available for invasion of rights)
- King v. Saucier, 356 So.2d 930 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978) (invasion of rights can support nominal damages)
- Londono v. Turkey Creek, Inc., 609 So.2d 14 (Fla. 1992) (double recovery principle in damages)
- Connelly v. Old Bridge Village Co-Op, Inc., 915 So.2d 652 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (claims may be arguably supported but not frivolous)
- Peyton v. Horner, 920 So.2d 180 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (fee awards require material facts support)