Fla. Stat. § 57.105

Section 57.105 does not allow attorney's fees when an action is brought in good faith based on information indicating justiciable issues of law and fact.

Richardson v. Helms · filed 1987-02-27

In addition, we find that appellee is not entitled to attorney's fees under section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1985), because HRS brought the paternity action in good faith reliance on information provided by Donna Richardson which at the time HRS brought the action indicated there were justiciable issues of law and fact raised.

Section 57.105 authorizes attorney's fees when a party's arguments are manifestly frivolous.

NEW ENGLAND RARE COIN GAL. v. Robertson · filed 1987-05-12

We have, by separate order, granted appellant's motion for attorney's fees under Section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1985), upon a finding that appellee's arguments that appellant lacked standing to contest the default and default judgment and that service of process by publication was proper are manifestly frivolous.

Section 57.105 permits attorney's fees when a party's position has no justiciable issue of law or fact.

Ciamar Marcy, Inc. v. Da Costa · filed 1987-06-09

This is not a case where, as required for an award of attorney's fees under Section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1985), there is a complete absence of a justiciable issue of law or fact.

Section 57.105 permits attorney's fees to the prevailing party when the losing party failed to raise a justiciable issue of law or fact, and a prevailing party requires a disposition of the case.

Ruppel v. Gulf Winds Apartments, Inc. · filed 1987-06-12

Under that section, the court may award attorney's fees to the "prevailing party" if the losing party failed to raise a justiciable issue of law or fact. For there to be a prevailing party, there must necessarily be a disposition of the case. Steinhardt, 413 So.2d at 786. There has been no such disposition here.

Section 57.105 does not support an attorney’s fee award when the facts of the case do not make the section available.

Transflorida Bank v. Style Holding Co. · filed 1987-06-17

Under the facts of this case, neither section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1986), nor the provision in the note and mortgage relative to attorney’s fees, is available to support the grant thereof.

Section 57.105 authorizes appellate attorney’s fees when a party’s position is unsupported.

Chambers v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. · filed 1987-06-23

We consider, in the light of the clearly controlling effect of Coll, that the appellee’s position in this case appropriately invokes section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1985). Accordingly, by separate order, we have granted the appellants’ motion for appellate attorney’s fees under that statute and remanded the cause for the trial court to fix the amount.

Section 57.105 requires attorney's fees when the losing party raised no justiciable issue of law or fact, and the record must support that finding.

Dorf v. Usher · filed 1987-09-09

An award of fees under this statute is not only justified, but is required where there is no justiciable issue of law or fact. ... The standard for awarding fees under this statute is a difficult one to meet. ... The trial court must find that there was a complete absence of a justiciable issue raised by the losing party. ... However, this record fails to support a conclusion that the complaint was either frivolously filed or devoid of arguable substance. ... We therefore reverse the award of attorney's fees to appellee.

Section 57.105 authorizes attorney's fees when a party raises a claim or defense that lacks a justiciable issue of law or fact.

Braham v. Carncross · filed 1987-10-16

Consequently, we find no merit in the appellee Carncross's cross-claim for attorney's fees under section 57.105.

Section 57.105 allows attorney fees when a party raises a claim or defense with no justiciable issue of law or fact.

Robertia v. Pine Tree Water Control Dist. · filed 1987-12-02

Because Pine Tree was not entitled to an injunction, it was, likewise, not entitled to attorney fees under Section 57.105, Florida Statutes. There clearly was not "a complete absence of a justiciable issue of either law or fact raised by" the Robertias.

Section 57.105 permits an award of attorney’s fees when a party’s defenses raise no justiciable issue of law or fact.

Staff v. Trafalgar Developers of Florida, Inc. · filed 1988-01-22

We find no error in the trial court’s ruling that appellees were entitled to an award under section 57.105 for their attorney’s services in the trial court.

Section 57.105 supports an award of attorney’s fees when a suit is sham and frivolous and presents no justiciable issues.

Winters v. Cricket Club · filed 1986-12-12

The trial judge erroneously determined that Appellant was not entitled to an award of attorney’s fees under Section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1983). It is clear from a review of the record that no justiciable issues existed as to Appellant, Defendant below. Appellee’s suit initiated against Appellant was sham and frivolous.

Section 57.105 does not authorize attorney's fees against a party making a good faith, soundly-based attempt to change an existing rule of law.

Jones v. Charles · filed 1988-01-13

A party asserting a good faith, soundly-based attempt to change an existing rule of law is not subject to attorney's fees under section 57.105.

Section 57.105 requires attorney’s fees when a civil action lacks any justiciable issue of law or fact, subject to the good faith protection for the losing party’s attorney.

Heilman v. Amerifirst Savings & Loan · filed 1987-05-20

We sua sponte dismiss this appeal having determined that the issue raised herein is without merit and frivolous on its face. We remand the cause to the trial court with directions that costs and attorney’s fees be taxed pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes (Supp.1986) which provides: The court shall award a reasonable attorney’s fee to be paid to the prevailing party in equal amounts by the losing party and the losing party’s attorney in any civil action in which the court finds that there was a complete absence of a justiciable issue of either law or fact raised by the complaint or defense of the losing party; provided, however, that the ... losing party’s attorney is not personally responsible if he has acted in good faith, based on the representations of his client.

Section 57.105 does not authorize attorney’s fees and costs merely because a complaint was inartfully drawn and voluntarily dismissed when the plaintiff may still have a bona fide claim.

Pena v. Allstate Insurance Co. · filed 1988-03-22

The mere fact that the original complaint was inartfully drawn and the cause was subsequently voluntarily dismissed would not, by the later event, determine as a matter of law that the plaintiff has no bona fide claim.

Section 57.105 authorizes attorney's fees when a claim or defense has a complete absence of a justiciable issue of law or fact.

Margulies v. Margulies · filed 1988-07-19

Because we reverse the court's ruling insofar as it gives Martin the sole discretion to choose Michael's school, we also reverse that part of the order assessing attorney's fees against Regina pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1987). Fireman's Fund Ins. Cos. v. Rojas, 447 So.2d 1023 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (award of attorney's fees reversed where the record did not demonstrate a complete absence of a justiciable issue of law or fact).

Section 57.105 authorizes attorney's fees to the prevailing party when the losing party's civil claim or defense lacks any justiciable issue of law or fact.

Coral Springs Roofing Co., Inc. v. Campagna · filed 1988-07-27

This section authorizes awards of attorney's fees to the prevailing party in any civil action in which the court finds that there was a complete absence of a justiciable issue of either law or fact raised by the losing party. Essentially, to award such fees, the court must find that the losing party's position was frivolous.

Section 57.105 permits an attorney's fee award for litigating the amount of fees when the underlying lawsuit presented no justiciable issue of law or fact.

Tiedeman v. City of Miami · filed 1988-08-23

The final order which awards attorney's fees to the defendant Show Management, Inc. under Section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1987), is affirmed upon a holding that ... (b) attorney's fees were properly awardable under the above statute for, among other things, litigating the amount of fee to be awarded, cf. Johnson v. Mississippi, 606 F.2d 635, 637-38 (5th Cir.1979); Prandini v. National Tea Co., 585 F.2d 47, 53-54 (3d Cir.1978); Castaway Lounge of Bay County, Inc. v. Reid, 411 So.2d 282, 285 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); and (c) there is no basis to upset the amount of the award as urged by the defendant Show Management, Inc. on the cross appeal.

Section 57.105 requires a reasonable attorney's fee when a civil action has no justiciable issue of law or fact, subject to the good faith exception for the losing party's attorney.

Home Indemnity, Inc. v. Floyd Beck Trucking, Inc. · filed 1988-11-10

Based on the course of history of this lawsuit, with which we assume the trial judge was made conversant at the hearing, we agree with his finding that this third suit was filed at a time when no justiciable argument of law or fact could be made to defeat Floyd Beck’s statute of limitations defense. It was frivolous to assume that Floyd Beck, having once raised the statute of limitations defense, would neglect to do so in the third suit. As the court said in Whitten v. Progressive Casualty Ins. Co., 410 So.2d 501, 505 (Fla.1982), “[a] trial Court’s finding of a complete lack of justi-ciable issue is justified in cases where the attempt to create a controversy is frivolous.”

Section 57.105 requires attorney fees when a court finds a complete absence of a justiciable issue of law or fact, subject to the attorney's good-faith exception.

Muniz v. Samero · filed 1988-12-01

The trial court should also resolve the attorney fee issue at the same time based upon a determination as to the complete absence of a justiciable issue of law or fact under section 57.105.

Section 57.105 authorizes attorney’s fees when a claim or defense is frivolous and lacks any justiciable legal or factual basis.

Zibell v. Chan · filed 1988-12-29

The trial court’s decision to award Chan attorney’s fees pursuant to section 57.105 is affirmed as no legal or factual matter presented by Zibell was justiciable (i.e., appropriate for review by the trial court).

Section 57.105 permits attorney's fees when a claim or defense lacks a justiciable issue of law or fact.

In re Estate of Scott · filed 1989-02-01

The trial court did not find that there was a complete absence of justiciable issues of law or fact in this case and therefore the fee award was unwarranted under section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1987).

Section 57.105 authorizes an award of attorney's fees for a frivolous claim or defense.

Ponzoli & Wassenberg, PA v. Zuckerman · filed 1989-04-18

The appellant is entitled to an award of attorney's fees under section 57.105, Florida Statutes.

Section 57.105 authorizes attorney’s fees when an appeal completely fails to raise a justiciable issue of law or fact.

Fumigation Department v. Pearson · filed 1989-08-15

Because this appeal completely failed to raise a justiciable issue of law or fact, appellee is also granted fees under Section 57.105, Florida Statutes.

Section 57.105 did not entitle individual counsel to attorney's fees on these facts.

Ginsberg v. Keehn · filed 1989-10-17

There was no abuse of discretion in denying attorney's fees under section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1987).

Section 57.105 permits attorney's fees when a claim or defense lacks a justiciable issue of law or fact.

Golden Triad Carriers, Inc. v. Paco American Corp. · filed 1989-11-21

Golden's suggestion that it is entitled to an award of attorney's fees under section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1987), is without merit. The record clearly is not devoid of justiciable issues of law or fact.

Section 57.105 does not support attorney's fee sanctions when the claimant has a real and concrete doubt about the rights at issue.

Caidin v. Lakow · filed 1989-07-25

Similarly, the fact that Caidin had a real and concrete doubt as to his rights under the release precludes the application of section 57.105, Florida Statutes, as the basis of the award for attorney’s fees.

Section 57.105 permits attorney's fees for a frivolous and completely untenable claim when the award is supported by an explicit finding.

SABTC Townhouse Ass'n, Inc. v. Schmitz · filed 1990-08-02

With regard to whether section 57.105, Florida Statutes entitled the defendants to attorney's fees, if the trial court had intended to award an attorney's fee upon the basis that any claim asserted by the plaintiff below was frivolous and completely untenable, it should have said so explicitly in its order.

Section 57.105 does not permit attorney’s fees against counsel when the pursued theory is nonfrivolous and counsel acted in good faith based on client representations.

Baron v. Fieldstone · filed 1991-06-25

Although the trial court ultimately rejected this theory and entered a summary judgment for the defendant, the theory was nonetheless nonfrivolous in nature, and counsel acted in good faith based on representations from his client to support this theory. This being so, attorney’s fees were improperly assessed against plaintiff’s counsel.

Section 57.105 authorizes attorney’s fees when the losing party raises no justiciable issue of law or fact.

Boczar v. Glendening · filed 1990-01-19

In order for a trial court to award attorney’s fees pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1987), the court must find a “complete absence of a justiciable issue of either law or fact raised by the losing party.”

Section 57.105 requires an award of reasonable attorney's fees to the prevailing party, shared equally by the losing party and the losing party's attorney, when the losing party's complaint or defense completely lacks a justiciable issue of law or fact, subject to its good faith exception.

Cabral v. Diversified Services, Inc. · filed 1990-03-06

For an award of attorney's fees pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1987), the trial court must find "that there was a complete absence of a justiciable issue of either law or fact raised by absence of a justiciable issue of either law or fact raised by the ... defense of the losing part; ..." § 57.105, Fla. Stat. (1987) (emphasis supplied); see Sachs v. Hoglund, 397 So.2d 447 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); see also Castaway Lounge of Bay County, Inc. v. Reid, 411 So.2d 282 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). In the present case, Cabral did not raise defenses which completely lacked any justiciable issues of law or fact; in fact, Cabral failed to raise any defenses at all. Thus, we find that the trial court erred in awarding Budget Rent-A-Car attorney's fees pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1987).

Section 57.105 permits attorney's fees when a claim is truly frivolous, with counsel responsible for one-half of the fee.

Winner v. Cataldo · filed 1990-04-10

If the claim against the individual defendant is truly frivolous, § 57.105 is available, and counsel would have to pay one-half of the fee, which would be appropriate.

Section 57.105(1) requires a reasonable attorney’s fee for the prevailing party when the losing party’s claim or defense had no justiciable issue of law or fact.

Southford v. Hatton · filed 1990-07-25(1)

Therefore, we reverse the order denying Southford costs and attorney’s fees and remand to the trial court with instructions to award Southford reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to section 57.-105(1), and to award him taxable costs pursuant to the Florida Supreme Court guidelines.

Section 57.105 permits attorney's fees only when a claim or defense is wholly without basis in law or fact.

Solimando v. Aloha Medical Center · filed 1990-09-05

Its order does not specifically state that Solimando's complaint was frivolous, but an award under section 57.105 is improper absent such a determination.

Section 57.105 requires attorney's fees when a civil action has no justiciable issue of law or fact and targets baseless claims, defenses, and appeals.

Thornber v. City of Ft. Walton Beach · filed 1990-10-11

The purpose of this statute is to discourage baseless claims, stonewall defenses, and sham appeals in civil litigation by placing a price tag through attorney's fee awards on losing parties who engage in these activities. ... The city's defense of the council members' claim did not completely lack a justiciable issue of either law or fact so as to allow them to recover fees against the city under section 57.105. We therefore approve the district court's affirmance of the trial court's refusal to award the council members attorney's fees incurred in this proceeding.

Section 57.105 did not support an award of attorneys’ fees to the other developers in this action.

Cleanco, Inc. v. Manor Investment Co. · filed 1990-10-24

In reaching this conclusion we have not overlooked the claim that attorneys’ fees could be awarded pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1985), or on a claim by Manor that it had indemnified the other appellees; we have, however, rejected these claims.

Section 57.105 permits attorney's fees to a successful respondent in a paternity action when the required predicate is established and the amount is reasonable.

Collins v. Brodzki · filed 1991-02-05

Under the proper circumstances fees may be awarded to a successful respondent in the paternity action pursuant to section 57.105, Fla.Stat. (1989) if the proper predicate is made and the amount is reasonable.

Section 57.105 authorizes reasonable attorney's fees when the losing party raises a claim or defense with a complete absence of a justiciable issue of fact or law.

Dalia v. Duda · filed 1991-03-19

In recognition of the absence of a basis for a contractual fee award, the court’s orders rely solely on the statute, section 57.105, as authority for the award of fees. However, there is no factual basis for an award of fees based on a finding that Dalia’s third-party action was frivolous.

Section 57.105 permits attorney's fees when a claim or defense lacks a justiciable issue.

Plantation Neighborhood Property Owners' Ass'n v. Tallahassee City Commission · filed 1991-04-23

However, since we find that this cause does involve justiciable issues, we affirm the trial court’s denial of appellants’ request for attorney’s fees pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes.

Section 57.105 authorizes attorney’s fees when a party pursues a claim recklessly without factual or legal support.

Ensign Bank, F.S.B. v. South Florida Warehousing II · filed 1991-07-10

We affirm the award of attorney’s fees under section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1989). ... This is tantamount to a finding that, as concerns the bank, the suit against appellee was brought recklessly without investigation of its own records and with complete absence of justiciable fact or law.

Section 57.105(1) awards attorney's fees when the losing party raised no justiciable issue, making the action completely untenable.

Ciaramello v. D'Ambra · filed 1991-09-27(1)

Section 57.105(1) provides that a party is entitled to an award of attorney's fees only when the court determines that there was a complete absence of a justiciable issue raised by the losing party, which renders the action completely untenable.

Section 57.105 authorizes attorney's fees when a claim or defense lacks substantial support in the record.

Pena v. Marshall King, P.A. · filed 1991-10-01

As the order awarding attorney’s fees under section 57.105, Florida Statutes *1203(1989), is supported by a substantial basis in this record, the judgment is affirmed.

Section 57.105 authorizes attorney’s fees when a claim is so devoid of merit that it is unsupported.

Chateaubleau Inn One, Inc. v. Gracci · filed 1991-10-08

In addition, we find the appellant’s claim so devoid of merit that we award attorney’s fees to the appellees pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1989).

Section 57.105 permits an award of attorney’s fees when the record provides a substantial basis for the award.

Vogel v. Baron · filed 1991-10-15

As the order awarding attorney’s fees under section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1989), and costs is supported by a substantial basis in this record, the judgment is affirmed.

Section 57.105 requires attorney’s fees when the losing party raised a claim or defense with no justiciable issue of law or fact, including in mandamus actions against governmental entities.

Northern Coats v. Metropolitan Dade County · filed 1991-10-22

Since a mandamus is a separate and distinct law suit, Coats can collect attorney’s fees under section 57.105 if the county’s defense to the action was without factual merit or legal basis.

Section 57.105 does not authorize attorney's fees for a good faith, soundly based, nonfrivolous attempt to change existing law, even if the attempt fails.

Muckerman v. Burris · filed 1990-02-20

Applicable to the circumstances of this case is the principle that when a party engages in a good faith, soundly based, nonfrivolous, but unsuccessful, attempt to change an existing rule of law, attorney's fees under section 57.105 are inappropriate.

Section 57.105 does not permit fees when a medical negligence complaint states a cause of action and the plaintiff conducted a good faith investigation before filing, even if later events suggest the suit is frivolous.

Solimando v. Aloha Medical Center · filed 1992-02-28

Where a complaint states a cause of action for medical negligence and the plaintiff has conducted a good faith investigation before filing suit, section 57.105 fees are inappropriate. Even though events may develop during the course of a lawsuit indicating that the suit is frivolous, this does not give rise to an award of fees pursuant to section 57.105.

Section 57.105 does not permit a fee award against H.R.S. without evidence that it knew or should have known its paternity claim was unfounded.

P.N. v. D.P. · filed 1993-10-29

In the absence of any evidence that H.R.S. knew or should have known that the appellee was not the father, an award of fees under section 57.105 is improper.

Section 57.105 does not authorize attorney’s fees when the action, taken as a whole, is not frivolous, even if some post-dismissal conduct is questionable.

Glantz v. Jacaranda Heights Condominium Ass'n · filed 1993-03-17

Further, even assuming that some of appellant’s post-dismissal conduct was questionable, taken as a whole, we do not believe appellant’s action can be classified as frivolous under section 57.105.

Section 57.105 does not authorize attorney’s fees solely because an action was dismissed as time-barred.

Gould v. Bank of Central Florida · filed 1993-07-30

Unfortunately, the action was filed beyond the statute of limitations and the cause was dismissed on motion. The Bank of Central Florida then moved for, and was awarded, attorney’s fees under section 57.105, Florida Statutes. We reverse on the authority of Piancone v. Engineering Design, Inc., 534 So.2d 896 (Fla. 5th DCA1988).

Section 57.105 does not authorize attorney's fees for a claim that makes a good faith, soundly based attempt to change existing law.

Wiggins v. Southern Management Corp. · filed 1993-12-29

As to appellee's cross-appeal, we affirm the trial court's denial of appellee's prayer for attorney's fees brought under section 57.105, Florida Statutes. We disagree with appellee's contention that appellant's claim was frivolous, i.e., that there was a complete absence of a justiciable issue of law or fact, so as to entitle appellee to attorney's fees under this section. ... We cannot think of a more fitting example of a good faith attempt to change existing law, grounded on solid public policy considerations, than the one at bar. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's denial of appellee's prayer for attorney's fees.

Section 57.105(1) does not authorize attorney's fees when a claim presents a good faith, soundly based argument to change existing law at the time it is filed.

CARNIVAL LEISURE INDUSTRIES v. Holzman · filed 1995-09-20(1)

Therefore, when the instant complaint was filed, which was after the Dade trial court ruled in Carnival's favor but before the appellate court's addressed the issue, Carnival possessed a good faith, soundly-based and unaddressed argument that Florida's public policy had changed. Thus, the trial court erred in granting Holzman's motion for attorney's fees pursuant to section 57.105.

Section 57.105 does not require a claimant to investigate and eliminate every possible defense before filing an action.

City of Largo v. LaGrande · filed 1995-02-08

We find that extending section 57.105 in this case would have the improper effect of discouraging access to the courts for legitimate disputes. ... The statute does not require a claimant to investigate and eliminate every possible defense before filing an action.

Section 57.105(1) does not permit attorney's fees when the losing party's legal position had arguable substance and was not frivolous.

Carnival Leisure Indus. Ltd. v. Arviv · filed 1995-05-17(1)

The fact that the circuit judge in the Froug case accepted Carnival's legal analysis and entered judgment in favor of Carnival on the merits necessarily means that Carnival's position on the legal issue had arguable substance and was not frivolous.

Section 57.105 does not justify attorney’s fees solely because a party refused a settlement offer.

Barnette v. Barnette · filed 1995-08-23

The trial court enforced the provision and assessed attorney’s fees against the wife solely because of her refusal to accept the husband’s offer to settle, which was consistent with the provision in the agreement that the court enforced. We affirm the court’s enforcement of the agreement, but reverse the attorney’s fee award because it was not based on any provision of the agreement or any statute. The court did not award fees under section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1993), and in any event, fees could not have been justified on that ground.

Section 57.105 does not support a fee award based on a release that does not clearly and unambiguously bar the claim.

Green v. Callahan · filed 1995-11-22

We also reverse the accompanying attorney’s fees and costs award pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1993). ... Second, the trial court’s finding appears to be based on the existence of the release, which we have found did not clearly and unambiguously release the stockholders of the company from liability.

Section 57.105 permits prevailing-party attorney’s fees when the losing party asserted a frivolous claim with no justiciable issue of law or fact.

Johns v. Senn · filed 1997-01-31

The statute authorizes an award of attorney’s fees to the prevailing party when the trial court finds the losing party has asserted a frivolous claim. ... However, we reverse the order awarding an attorney’s fee to appellee as the prevailing party.

Section 57.105 authorizes attorney’s fees against plaintiff’s counsel when a lawsuit has no conceivable legal or factual basis.

Davis v. Christmas · filed 1997-12-03

In this case, there was no such vehicular or legal confusion and no conceivable basis to ascribe liability to the defendants. Accordingly, we reverse the order denying fees. We remand with directions to the trial court to award defendants fees under section 57.105 to be imposed against plaintiff's counsel and to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine the amount of fees to be assessed.

Section 57.105(1) does not support an attorney's fee award against a party when summary judgment against its potentially viable claim was improper.

Costello v. City of Cape Coral · filed 1997-03-05(1)

Having concluded that the trial court improperly entered the summary judgment, it follows that the determination to award the City attorney's fees under section 57.105(1) was also error and, accordingly, we reverse that order.

Section 57.105 does not authorize attorney’s fees against a meritorious claim.

Rodell v. Narson · filed 1998-02-18

This was a meritorious claim that was not subject to section 57.105 attorney’s fees. Hence, attorney’s fees were improperly awarded to Narson.

Section 57.105 permits an attorney’s fee award when a claim was frivolous at the time the complaint was filed.

Dictiomatic, Inc. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. · filed 1999-06-15(1)

The point in time to assess whether the granting of fees pursuant to section 57.105 is appropriate is at the lawsuit’s inception, or in other words, at the time of the filing of the complaint.

Section 57.105 permits attorney fees for a frivolous defamation action.

Daniels v. Patterson · filed 2000-01-27

Patterson filed a verified motion to tax costs and a motion for attorney fees under section 57.105, Florida Statutes, citing Demby v. English, 667 So.2d 350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). ... We find this action to be no less frivolous than the defamation action in Demby v. English.

Section 57.105 permits an attorney’s fee award when a plaintiff files a frivolous action despite prior notice that the defendant is exempt from liability.

William Lehman Leasing Corp. v. Joseph · filed 2000-05-17

Because Joseph was given notice of Lehman’s exemption from liability almost four years prior to the filing of this lawsuit, this action is frivolous at the inception, and Lehman is entitled to attorney’s fees.

Section 57.105(1) does not permit an attorney's fee award solely because a plaintiff failed to provide required presuit notice.

Widmer v. Caldwell · filed 1998-07-15(1)

Although these cases do not remedy Widmer's failure to appeal the order, they do very strongly indicate that failure to give presuit notice does not equate with "a complete absence of a justiciable issue of either law or fact ..." as required by section 57.105(1), Florida Statutes. Because the issue is not before us, we express no opinion as to whether the facts alleged by Widmer could have led to frivolous suit attorneys' fees, but we do hold that the mere failure to comply with presuit notice does not in and of itself allow an award of fees.

Section 57.105(2) permits a good faith argument to extend, modify, or reverse existing law or establish new law without an attorney’s fee sanction.

Faile v. Fleming · filed 2000-06-14(2)

We reverse the award of attorney’s fees under section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1999). The attempt to have the court adopt the Carr decision as the law of Florida constitutes “a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law,” contemplated by section 57.105(2).

Section 57.105 does not authorize fee sanctions for a claim or defense initially presented as a good faith argument to change existing law.

Brooks v. Hathaway · filed 2000-09-20

That statute also provides, however, that it will not apply “if the court determines that the claim or defense was initially presented to the court as a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law.” § 57.105, Fla. Stat. (1997). ... She made the same argument as the defendant in Schus-sel and “presented to the court ... a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law.” We conclude that the trial court erred in finding that Collins filed a motion that had “no reasonable chance of success and which could not be logically and reasonably argued through existing law.” Under these circumstances, the award of sanctions against counsel for appellant was an abuse of discretion.

Section 57.105(1) does not authorize sanctions for a venue claim supported by material facts and statutory authority.

Kosa v. Estate of Jorgensen · filed 2000-12-13(1)

We find that there are material facts and statutory authority that support appellants claim of venue in Broward County and, therefore, section 57.105(1) is inapplicable.

Under the 1997 version of section 57.105, a complaint filed in good faith in reliance on a paternity affidavit does not warrant attorney’s fees.

State, Department of Revenue ex rel. Weaver v. Allen · filed 2000-12-15

We conclude that the Department of Revenue filed the complaint in good faith in reliance on the paternity affidavit executed by the mother of the child. Accordingly, we must reverse the order awarding attorney’s fees to the putative father under section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1997).

Under the 1995 version of section 57.105, attorney’s fees require a lack of justiciable issues when the complaint is filed; a suit that becomes frivolous later does not qualify.

National Continental Insurance v. Barker · filed 2000-12-20

Under the 1995 version of section 57.105, applicable here, attorney’s fees could only be awarded if there was a lack of justicia-ble issues when the complaint was initially filed. This sanction could not be imposed where the law suit is not frivolous when filed, but becomes frivolous later.

Under the pre-October 1999 version of § 57.105, entitlement to fees for a claim lacking a justiciable issue is assessed when the complaint is filed.

McMahan v. Toto · filed 2001-07-10

Accordingly, we affirm the district court's holding that there was not a "complete absence of a justiciable issue of either law or fact" at the time the complaint was filed.

Under the 1997 version of section 57.105(1), attorney's fees required a complete lack of justiciable issues when the claim or defense was initially presented.

Arenas v. City of Coleman · filed 2001-08-17(1)

Under the 1997 version of section 57.105 applicable here, attorney's fees could be awarded only if there was a complete lack of justiciable issues of either law or fact at the time the claim or defense was initially presented.

Section 57.105 does not support an attorney’s fee award based on a lis pendens notice that satisfies the statutory notice requirements.

Tampa Bay 1, L.L.C. v. Lorello Cypress Family Ltd. Partnership · filed 2002-07-19(1)

Even if we were to assume that section 57.105 would authorize an award of attorney’s fees where the plaintiff filed a facially defective notice of lis pendens, we conclude that the award of attorney’s fees in this case was improper because the notice was facially sufficient. The notice of lis pendens contained the date the complaint was filed. Additionally, the notice of lis pendens contained a statement that the relief sought in the complaint was for specific performance regarding the sale of the property that was described in the notice. We find that these provisions, along with the other facts contained in the notice, were sufficient to satisfy the requirements of section 48.23(l)(a). Accordingly, the trial court abused its discretion in determining that the notice of lis pendens was not supported by the necessary material facts or then-existing applicable law.

Section 57.105(1) does not permit an attorney's fee award when a claim is arguably supported by material facts and then-existing law.

Cowgill v. Bank of America · filed 2002-11-15(1)

We reverse the award of attorney's fees to Mickey Cowgill pursuant to section 57.105(1), Florida Statutes (2000), because the Appellants' claim was arguably supported by material facts and then-existing law.

Section 57.105(1)(a) does not authorize fees on the ground that a claim lacked factual support when filed if a legal presumption supplied the necessary material facts at that time.

Greenberg v. Van Dam · filed 2002-11-13(1)(a)

As there was a presumption of undue influence at the onset of the litigation, it is axiomatic that the claim, when initially presented, was “supported by the material facts necessary to establish the claim.” It may be that at some point in the litigation it became apparent that the claim could not be supported, but that was not the basis of the trial court’s ruling.

Section 57.105 does not justify attorney's fees merely because a claim was dismissed if the claim was not completely lacking in merit.

Read v. Taylor · filed 2002-12-04(1)

While the propriety of the trial court's dismissal of these claims is not before us, it appears from the record before us that these claims were not so completely lacking in merit as to warrant an award of fees under section 57.105. Accordingly, the trial court's award of fees is reversed.

A second motion is not frivolous under section 57.105 merely because it concerns the same dispute as an earlier motion, when it raises an issue the court has not previously addressed.

Mizrahi v. Mizrahi · filed 2004-03-10

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying her attorney's fees and costs pursuant to section 57.105 because the father was not litigating an issue that had already been adjudicated.

Under the 1995 version of section 57.105, a fee award for a frivolous defense may stand even if the plaintiff loses on one alternative theory but prevails on the others.

Perlman v. Abel · filed 2004-07-28

The trial court rejected that argument because the RICO claim was simply an alternative theory to the fraud and civil theft claims, and plaintiff prevailed on both of those claims. We are unable to say that the trial court erred in this reasoning, ... particularly where, as in this case, we have not been furnished with a copy of the transcript of the trial. We therefore affirm the award of section 57.105 fees.

Section 57.105 does not support a fee award when the claim is not completely lacking in merit.

Insurance Co. of North America v. HMY Yacht Sales, Inc. · filed 2003-03-12

As to the section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2001), fees awarded to HMY, we reverse the award as the negligence count was not completely lacking in merit.

Section 57.105 does not permit an attorney's fee award based on seeking certiorari when certiorari is a proper procedural remedy.

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COM. v. Titusville Total Health Care · filed 2003-05-02

Because certiorari was not an improper procedural remedy for Allstate to seek, the court's order permitting attorney's fees against it was improper and is hereby quashed and the resulting award of attorney's fees is set aside.

Section 57.105(2)’s safe harbor for a good faith argument to change the law does not cover an action that merely relitigates previously decided issues.

Americana Associates, Ltd. v. WHUD Real Estate Ltd. Partnership · filed 2003-05-30(2)

New issues were not presented by Americana that would allow it to fall within the safe harbor of the provisions of § 57.105(2) of the Florida Statutes and the trial court abused its discretion in failing to award attorney’s fees to WHUD.

Conflicting witness testimony does not by itself establish that a claim lacks the factual support required to avoid section 57.105 sanctions.

Mullins v. Kennelly · filed 2003-06-27(1)

The fact that the witnesses provided contradictory evidence does not necessarily compel the court to the conclusion that the action lacked factual support and was therefore sanctionable under section 57.105.

Section 57.105 requires a finding that, when a claim or defense was presented, the losing party knew or should have known it lacked necessary factual support or support under existing law.

Sher v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. · filed 2003-07-09(1)

In awarding fees under this section, the trial court must find that, at the time a claim or defense is presented to the court, the losing party knows or should know that it “[w]as not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the claim or defense” or “[w]ould not be supported by the application of then-existing law to those material facts.” ... An absence of justi-ciable issues is no longer the standard for awarding fees under section 57.105.

Section 57.105(1) permits a fee award only for an unsupported claim or defense that was at issue in the action.

Cheetham v. Brickman · filed 2003-11-12(1)

We reverse the fee award because the distribution of sale proceeds was never the subject of either a claim or a defense in this action at any time, nor was this issue tried below. § 57.105(1), Fla. Stat. (2002)(authorizing awards of attorney's fees to parties prevailing on "any claim or defense" unsupported by fact or law).

Section 57.105(1) does not authorize attorney's fees for a defense that had factual support before summary judgment.

Wendy's of NE Florida, Inc. v. Vandergriff · filed 2003-11-19(1)

Here, the trial court abused its discretion in awarding fees under section 57.105, Florida Statutes, because Wendy's position was not wholly unsupported by the facts at any time before the final summary judgment.

Section 57.105 does not authorize attorney fees for a position grounded in the opposing party’s conflicting claims and therefore far from baseless.

Cook v. Estate of Silverio · filed 2003-11-19

Thus, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding fees under Section 57.105 because the Cooks’ position, which was premised upon the claims made by Silverio in the wrongful death case, was far from baseless.

Section 57.105(1)(a) permits fees incurred litigating a factual claim that a party knew or should have known was unsupported.

Wagner v. Uthoff · filed 2004-03-12(1)(a)

The trial court properly awarded Dr. Uthoff the attorneys' fees incurred in litigating the residency claim because Mr. Wagner knew or should have known the 2002 affidavit was false.

Section 57.105 does not warrant sanctions merely because a claim fails for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Religious Technology Center v. Liebreich · filed 2004-05-10

In this case, § 57.105 sanctions would be inappropriate for the same reasons that Rule 11 sanctions are unwarranted.

Section 57.105 authorizes attorney’s fees when counsel knew or should have known that a claim lacked factual or legal support.

Stok v. Moller · filed 2004-11-24

We conclude, however, that the motion for section 57.105 fees should have been granted because there was no justiciable issue upon which to base the Motion to Disgorge Fees. The Wife’s attorney knew or should have known that the claim as contained in the Motion to Disgorge Fees was not supported by the facts or by application of then existing law to those facts.

Section 57.105 permits an attorney's fee award when claims lack factual and legal support.

Grob v. Bieluch · filed 2005-10-05

We affirm the trial court's order granting attorney's fees pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes. ... We agree that appellant had neither the facts nor the law to support his claims.

Section 57.105 permits attorney’s fees when a defendant’s defense had no viable basis from the outset.

O'Hara Gallery, Inc. v. Nader · filed 2004-12-15

It is abundantly clear from the record before us that the trial court abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs motion for attorney’s fees because it was apparent from the outset that defendant had no viable defense.

Section 57.105 does not support attorney fees when the challenged complaint states a cause of action.

Scott v. Busch · filed 2005-07-29

We disagree that the second amended complaint failed to state a cause of action and accordingly reverse the award of attorney fees against Scott.

The 1999 version of section 57.105 permits attorney’s fees for an unsupported motion seeking section 57.105 fees.

Albritton v. Ferrera · filed 2005-09-02

Contrary to the trial court's ruling, the 1999 version would permit a "reverse frivolous claim" for section 57.105 fees. The 1999 amendment lowered the bar by permitting the imposition of attorney's fees for any claim or defense if, at any stage of the proceeding, it is determined the claim or defense lacks a sufficient factual or legal basis.

Section 57.105 does not support an attorney’s fee award when plaintiffs reasonably believe the facts support their claim and voluntarily dismiss it after learning otherwise.

Nesci v. Duffau · filed 2005-09-07

Based on the evidence in the record, we find no basis to conclude that Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against Duffau knowing that the claim was not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the claim or not supported by the application of law to those facts as required by section 57.105. On the contrary, the evidence shows that Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against Duffau under the reasonable belief that Bond worked for Duffau but, upon learning that was not the case in taking Bond’s deposition, they voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit against Duffau. Under these circumstances and facts, the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees to Duffau under section 57.105.

Section 57.105(1)(a) does not authorize attorney's fees merely because a court rejects a party's reasonable interpretation of a contract.

Peyton v. Horner · filed 2006-02-10(1)(a)

A court's determination that a party's interpretation of a contract is incorrect does not mean that the other party is necessarily entitled to section 57.105 fees.

Section 57.105 requires courts to assess attorney's fees for bringing or failing to timely dismiss baseless claims or defenses.

Smith v. Gore · filed 2006-03-17(1)

We again remind the bar that section 57.105 expressly states courts "shall" assess attorney's fees for bringing, or failing to timely dismiss, baseless claims or defenses.

Section 57.105 does not warrant attorney's fees merely because a claim fails when the claim was not meritless or frivolous.

Moss v. Moss · filed 2006-09-29

Given the cases cited and the trial court's discussion of the facts and law, we agree with the trial court that the Wife's claims were not so meritless or frivolous as to warrant an award of attorney's fees under section 57.105.

Section 57.105 does not support a fee award for a factual assertion that is supported by evidence and is neither known to be false nor contradicted by overwhelming evidence.

Turovets v. Khromov · filed 2006-11-08

On the record in this case, the trial court could not properly conclude that the appellants' factual assertion that Khromov signed the deed was a known false statement or was contradicted by overwhelming evidence. ... Likewise, we reverse the trial court's assessment of section 57.105 fees to Khromov and remand the case to the trial court for recalculation of attorney's fees.

An adverse summary judgment does not by itself establish entitlement to attorney’s fees under section 57.105(1).

Bowen v. Brewer · filed 2006-08-30(1)

Winning a motion for summary judgment does not conclusively prove a section 57.105 claim.

Section 57.105(1)(b) requires an attorney's fee award when a losing party or attorney knew or should have known that a claim lacked support under existing law as applied to the material facts.

De Vaux v. Westwood Baptist Church · filed 2007-04-04(1)(b)

Section 57.105(1) mandates a court to award fees to the prevailing party in equal amounts to be paid by the losing party and the losing party's attorney where the court finds that the losing party or the losing party's attorney knew or should have known that a claim was, among other things, not supported by the application of then-existing law to the material facts relating to the claim.

Section 57.105 does not warrant fees for pursuing a claim when the legal issue had not yet been decided in the district.

Global Heir & Asset Locators, Inc. v. First NLC Financial Services, LLC · filed 2006-09-13

Because the issue had not yet been decided in this district when this claim was pursued, we do not agree with the trial court that Florida law was so well established as to warrant fees under section 57.105.

Section 57.105(1) permits an attorney’s fee award when the losing party or counsel knew or should have known that a claim lacked the necessary factual or legal support.

Murphy v. Murphy · filed 2006-12-08(1)

Because the record in this case does not support a finding that the Murphys or their counsel knew or should have known that their claims against Michael and Jacqueline Murphy were not supported by the material facts or the application of then-existing law to those material facts, ... we reverse the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees under section 57.105.

Section 57.105 permits an attorney’s fee sanction for litigation misconduct involving a party’s financial disclosures and discovery obligations.

Ratigan v. Stone · filed 2007-01-10

Here, the former husband was not forthright with his financial affairs and failed to comply with discovery requests. The trial judge found that the former husband engaged in wrong-doing throughout the trial. We find that the trial judge was justified in awarding attorneys fees as a sanction to the former wife, pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2002).

Section 57.105 does not permit a fee award based solely on a pleading deficiency that would ordinarily warrant dismissal with leave to amend.

Payne v. Beverly · filed 2007-06-22

Even if the dismissal were for such a pleading deficiency, however, it should normally be without prejudice to amend. This being so, it was error to assess fees against Payne on the basis of section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2005).

Section 57.105 fee sanctions require an inquiry into what the losing party knew or should have known about the factual support for its claim; summary judgment alone does not establish entitlement to fees.

Salazar v. Helicopter Structural & Maintenance, Inc. · filed 2007-11-07(1)(a)

The trial court's task at summary judgment hearings is separate and distinct from section 57.105 hearings. The former is a proceeding based on established facts. The latter is an inquiry into what the losing party knew or should have known during the fact-establishment process, both before and after suit is filed.

Section 57.105 permits sanctions when a party and counsel advance arguments that a reasonable lawyer would know lack factual and legal support.

Hernandez v. Gil · filed 2008-12-10

Finally, this is also one of those rare cases in which this Court itself, exercising its authority under section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2007), has determined that Hernandez and his current counsel have advanced arguments that a reasonable lawyer would know are not well grounded in fact and are not supported by existing law (or by a reasonable argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law).

Section 57.105(1)(a) does not authorize fees when a claim remains supported by the material facts necessary to establish it, even if the claim is dismissed.

Department of Children and Families v. SE · filed 2009-07-01(1)(a)

Because the CPT doctors remained convinced throughout the pendency of this litigation that a risk of imminent abuse, abandonment, or neglect existed, despite the withdrawal of the Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy allegations, we find that DCF’s petition for dependency was always supported by the necessary material facts to overcome an award of section 57.105 fees.

Section 57.105(1)(b) permits appellate attorney’s fees when a party or attorney knew or should have known that a rehearing motion lacked support in existing law.

UNIFIRST CORP. v. City of Jacksonville · filed 2010-03-25(1)(b)

Both Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.330 and the cases we have cited existed at the time Appellant filed its motion; thus, Appellant’s attorney knew or should have known that the motion would not be supported by the application of the law to the material facts of this case. Consequently, a sanction of attorney’s fees pursuant to section 57.105(l)(b) is warranted.

Section 57.105 does not authorize attorney’s fees when a claim has a justiciable factual basis and is not completely without merit or contradicted by overwhelming evidence.

Asinmaz v. Semrau · filed 2010-09-01

Because the case was not completely without merit or contradicted by overwhelming evidence, given the inference which may be raised from the unreasonable belief by Semrau in the truth of her claims, the trial court abused its discretion in concluding that the standard of section 57.105 was met.

Section 57.105(1) does not authorize a fee award merely because a party loses on the merits.

Cullen v. Marsh · filed 2010-05-12(1)

As this and many other courts have repeatedly confirmed, merely losing a case on the merits is not a basis for a section 57.105 fee award.

Section 57.105(1) permits attorney’s fees for an unsupported claim even if the claimant may prevail in a new action.

Country Place Community Ass'n v. J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Corp. · filed 2010-12-29(1)

For the purpose of awarding fees under section 57.105(1), it does not matter that J.P. Morgan may be able to prevail in a new action to foreclose.

Section 57.105(1) allows attorney’s fees when a party or its lawyer knew or should have known a claim lacked the facts needed to support it and failed to take appropriate action during the twenty-one-day period.

South Bay Lakes Homeowners Ass'n v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · filed 2011-02-18(1)

Section 57.105 entitles a party to attorney’s fees if the losing party, or the losing party’s attorney, knew or should have known that a claim was not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the claim when the party initially presented the claim to the court or at any time before trial. ... The undisputed facts at the hearing established that Wells Fargo was required to take a voluntary dismissal of this action or some other appropriate action during the allotted twenty-one days and that it had no right to compel the association to proceed to judgment on the motion for summary judgment.

Section 57.105(1) does not authorize attorney’s fees against a losing party or counsel when competent, substantial evidence supports the claim or defense and the factfinder resolves conflicting evidence against them.

Siegel v. Rowe · filed 2011-10-05(1)

Where, as in this case, the losing party presents competent, substantial evidence in support of the claims or defenses presented and the trial court determines the issues of fact adversely to the losing party based on conflicting evidence, section 57.105(1) does not authorize an award of attorney’s fees against the attorney for the losing party and his or her client.

Section 57.105(1) permits sanctions when a claim lacks a basis in material facts or then-existing law; it does not require a finding of frivolousness.

Martin County Conservation Alliance v. Martin County · filed 2011-11-04(1)

Section 57.105 does not require a finding of frivolousness to justify sanctions, but only a finding that the claim lacked a basis in material facts or then-existing law.