Siegel v. Rowe
2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 15722
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- Siegel and Leahy-Fernandez challenge a 57.105(1) attorney's fees award rendered against them following a merits judgment against Leahy-Fernandez on her claims to recover $50,000.
- Underlying action involved alleged money lent to Rowe, Rumbough, and Five-Star Realty; defendants claimed the funds were a gift and moved to preclude claims under Statute of Frauds.
- The $50,000 transfer occurred via three Hawaii-drawn checks in 2004; no loan documentation, promissory note, mortgage, or timely written acknowledgments were produced.
- The circuit court ruled against Leahy-Fernandez on the merits, but acknowledged conflicting testimony and expressed concern over the absence of concrete documentation and deposition of the decedent, Fernandez.
- After trial, the circuit court awarded defendants $42,413.89 in fees and costs, and entered judgment partly against Leahy-Fernandez (bankruptcy later affected finality).
- The Florida Second District Court of Appeal reversed the fee award, held Leahy-Fernandez’s claims were supported by material facts and the record, and found the Statute of Frauds did not bar the money-lent claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abuse of discretion for 57.105(1) fees | Leahy-Fernandez and Siegel contend there were competent, conflicting proofs supporting claims. | Rowe/ Rumbough/ Five-Star Realty argue the court correctly found lack of admissible evidence. | Abuse of discretion; fees reversed. |
| Whether the claims were supported by material facts | Claims were supported by Leahy-Fernandez’s testimony and cancelled checks. | Evidence failed to prove enforceable loan; documentation deficient. | Claims were supported by material facts; not frivolous. |
| Statute of Frauds applicability to money lent claim | Claim for direct promise to pay not barred by Statute of Frauds. | Statute of Frauds barred certain device-based claims; argued absence of writing precluded relief. | Not barred; direct promise to pay falls outside the Statute of Frauds. |
| Role of conflicting testimony in fee analysis | Conflicting but competent testimony supports the losing party’s claims. | Trial court adequately weighed credibility and resolved conflicts against plaintiff. | Schultz rationale applied; not frivolous; fee award improper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Peyton v. Horner, 920 So.2d 180 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (abuse-of-discretion standard for 57.105 fees)
- Albritton v. Ferrera, 913 So.2d 5 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (material-facts standard; evidence sufficiency)
- Mason v. Highlands Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 817 So.2d 922 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (competent evidence required for fees/LA)
- Weatherby Assocs., Inc. v. Ballack, 783 So.2d 1138 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (good faith defense; non-frivolous issues)
- Schultz v. Williams, 472 So.2d 1347 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (conflicting testimony visualized; not frivolous)
- Asinmaz v. Semrau, 42 So.3d 955 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (not meriting fees when case not without merit)
- Larnel Builders, Inc. v. U.S. Concrete Pipe Co., 117 So.2d 438 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960) (statute-of-frauds—original undertaking vs. surety)
- Jim & Slim's Tool Supply, Inc. v. Metro Cmtys. Corp., 328 So.2d 213 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976) (tests for enforceability under contract framework)