MINTO PBLH, LLC v. 1000 FRIENDS OF FLORIDA, INC.
228 So. 3d 147
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Plaintiffs challenged Development Orders as inconsistent with the County Comprehensive Plan; Minto PBLH, LLC sought attorney’s fees under §57.105 and §163.3215(6) against 1000 Friends.
- Trial court denied fees to Minto as to 1000 Friends; sanctions against cross-appellants were entered for their claims.
- Appellate court reviews a §57.105 fee award for abuse of discretion unless the issue is pure law; de novo review applies to legal questions.
- Court held plaintiffs’ claims had some arguable basis, though not persuasive, and sanctions should be applied with restraint to avoid chilling access to courts.
- On cross-appeal, sanctions against cross-appellants were reversed because jointly filed claims were not wholly unsupported and the counsel’s statements did not prove knowledge of lack of support.
- Result: denial of fees affirmed for the main appeal; sanctions reversed for the cross-appeal; no sanctions affirmed under §163.3215(6).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the §57.105 fees against 1000 Friends were proper | Minto contends no fee here; claims were lacking but had arguable basis. | 1000 Friends’ position lacked support; sanctions appropriate as to the losing party. | Denial of fees affirmed |
| Whether sanctions against cross-appellants were proper | Claims were not wholly unsupported; conduct did not prove knowledge of lack of support. | Cross-appellants argue same basis; sanctions warranted for frivolous claims. | Sanctions reversed as to cross-appellants |
| Whether the court properly applied restraint in §57.105 sanctions | Rules should discourage baseless claims but not chill access to courts. | Strict application necessary to deter baseless claims. | Court applied restraint; no reversal on main appeal |
| Whether §163.3215(6) sanctions were appropriate | No improper purpose shown. | Sanctions should be affirmed if improper purpose shown. | Sanctions under §163.3215(6) properly denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Lago v. Kame By Design, LLC, 120 So. 3d 73 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (abuse standard for §57.105; restraint in sanctions)
- Kowallek v. Rehm, 189 So. 3d 262 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (arguable basis prevents automatic sanctions)
- MacAlister v. Bevis Constr., Inc., 164 So. 3d 773 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (restrained use of §57.105 to avoid chilling access)
- Cullen v. Marsh, 34 So. 3d 235 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (losing a case alone not a basis for sanctions)
- Peyton v. Horner, 920 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (interpretation of legal documents not necessarily sanction-worthy error)