Wells v. Halmac Development, Inc.
189 So. 3d 1015
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Wells hired Halmac for home construction, fired it, and Halmac filed a mechanic’s lien and suit; parties agreed to arbitrate and the arbitrator would decide the prevailing party.
- At arbitration the arbitrator awarded certain claims to each side, dismissed Wells’ fraudulent-lien claim against Castro personally, and concluded there was no prevailing party for attorneys’ fees.
- Castro sought modification and then sought a trial-court declaration that he was the prevailing party; the trial court granted that declaration despite the arbitrator’s determination.
- This court granted Wells’ mandamus petition, held the trial court had no basis to overturn the arbitrator, quashed the trial-court prevailing-party order, and awarded Wells appellate 57.105 fees.
- Wells then moved for attorneys’ fees under section 57.105(1)(b) against Castro and his counsel for pursuing the prevailing-party claim after the arbitrator’s ruling; the trial court denied fees finding Castro presented a colorable claim under Hollub and section 713.31.
- The district court reversed, holding Castro’s position was legally untenable in light of Trytek and that Wells was entitled to 57.105 fees payable by Castro’s counsel beginning February 14, 2012.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Castro reasonably could seek a trial-court declaration that he was the prevailing party after the arbitrator found no prevailing party | Castro’s request was baseless and triggered 57.105 sanctions because the arbitrator already decided no prevailing party | Castro argued Hollub and §713.31 supported declaring a prevailing party and thus his motion was colorable | Court: Castro’s position was not supported by then-existing law (Trytek); fees under §57.105 awarded to Wells starting Feb. 14, 2012 |
| Whether the trial court erred by granting Castro prevailing-party status | Trial court’s ruling contravened the arbitrator’s determination and applicable law | Trial court believed Castro’s claim was colorable and relied on Hollub and §713.31 | Court: Trial court erred; it had no legal basis to overturn the arbitrator’s determination |
| Whether §57.105 sanctions are improper when a party initially wins at trial but loses on appeal | Wells argued a post-arbitration trial-court victory does not shield counsel from 57.105 liability when the claim lacked legal support | Castro argued prevailing below insulated him from sanctions despite the appeal loss | Court: Prevailing at trial does not automatically shield counsel; sanctions appropriate where claim lacked reasonable basis in law |
| Who is liable for attorneys’ fees under §57.105(1)(b) | Wells sought fees against Castro and his counsel; statute permits fee awards against attorneys | Castro argued fees improper because claim was colorable | Court: Fee award to Wells to be taxed solely against Castro’s counsel (per §57.105(3)(c)) |
Key Cases Cited
- Trytek v. Gale Indus., Inc., 3 So. 3d 1194 (Fla. 2009) (construction-lien cases do not always require a prevailing-party finding; limits Hollub)
- Hollub Constr. Co. v. Narula, 704 So.2d 689 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (addressed prevailing-party determination in mechanic’s lien context)
- Prosperi v. Code, Inc., 626 So. 2d 1360 (Fla. 1993) (significant-issues test for prevailing-party analysis cited)
- Moritz v. Hoyt Enters., Inc., 604 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 1992) (significant-issues framework for attorney-fee entitlement)
- In re Forfeiture of 100,000 Euros, 170 So. 3d 810 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (affirmed awarding 57.105 fees where neither facts nor law supported claims)
- Albritton v. Ferrera, 913 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (party’s trial victory does not insulate counsel from 57.105 sanctions)
- Waddington v. Baptist Med. Ctr. of Beaches, Inc., 78 So. 3d 114 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (discusses attorney-only liability under §57.105(3)(c))