314 So.3d 385
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2020Background
- Appellants Meryl M. Lanson (individually and as personal representative of Norman Lanson) and Baron's Stores, Inc. appealed a trial-court award of attorney’s fees and costs under Fla. Stat. § 57.105 to the Reid law firms and attorneys (the Reid Appellees).
- The litigation spanned more than a decade and multiple prior appeals; the trial court dismissed the malpractice claims with prejudice and found the Appellants’ filings frivolous for § 57.105 purposes.
- The trial court conducted a hearing on entitlement to § 57.105 fees and entered a Standing Order requiring the Appellants to make itemized, authority-supported objections to the appellees’ multi-year billing records.
- Appellants submitted multiple blanket objections and motions instead of the specific objections the Standing Order required and did not challenge hourly rates nor provide a transcript of the entitlement hearing on appeal.
- The trial court found competent, substantial evidence that Appellants knew or should have known their claims were unsupported by facts or law and awarded fees; the Third District affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion and that Appellants waived objections by failing to comply with the Standing Order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by awarding § 57.105 fees | Lanson argued they were deprived of an evidentiary hearing and record lacked basis for fees (relying on Blue Infiniti) | Reid argued record and hearing supplied substantial competent evidence of frivolous filings and sanctionable conduct | Court affirmed; no abuse of discretion — hearing occurred and record supported fees |
| Whether an evidentiary hearing was required before awarding fees | Appellants: Blue Infiniti requires hearing where record is unclear | Appellees: hearing held; record clear here so no separate evidentiary hearing necessary | Court: Blue Infiniti distinguishable; no additional hearing required because record was clear |
| Whether Appellants waived objections to fee items and rates | Appellants: broad objections and postures preserved issues | Appellees: Standing Order required itemized objections; Appellants failed to comply and thus waived objections | Court: waiver — Standing Order deemed unaddressed items agreed and objections waived |
| Whether trial-court findings must be supported by record/transcript | Appellants: absence of transcript undermines findings | Appellees: presumption of correctness applies when no transcript provided | Court: presumption applies; without transcript appellate court must accept trial-court findings |
Key Cases Cited
- DiStefano Constr., Inc. v. Fid. & Deposit Co., 597 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 1992) (award of attorney’s fees reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Blue Infiniti, LLC v. Wilson, 170 So. 3d 136 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (evidentiary hearing required where record lacks substantial competent evidence of frivolity)
- Gonzalez v. Int’l Park Condo. I Ass’n, Inc., 217 So. 3d 1128 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (trial court must make specific findings and recite facts when awarding § 57.105 fees)
- Montgomery v. Larmoyeux, 14 So. 3d 1067 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (findings must be supported by substantial competent evidence in the record)
- Sec. Pac. Credit Corp. v. Oasis Plaza Corp., 714 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (sanctions warranted where counsel re-litigated claims previously determined to lack merit)
- O’Brien v. Brickell Townhouse, Inc., 457 So. 2d 1123 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (trial court need not take additional evidence to find a claim frivolous; may rule on the record)
- Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979) (absent transcript, trial-court rulings are presumed correct)