Fla. Stat. § 57.105

A directed verdict for the defendant does not automatically require an attorney’s fee award under section 57.105.

Schnier v. Barnett Bank of South Florida, N.A. · filed 1992-02-18

Barnett cross-appeals from an order denying attorney’s fees under section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1989), and denying certain costs. ... In addition, we hold that the trial court acted well within its sound discretion when it denied the award of attorney’s fees.

Objections to a section 57.105 fee request must be raised in response to the motion; arguments first raised on rehearing come too late.

Homestead Ins. Co. v. POOLE, MASTERS & GOLDS. · filed 1992-04-01

As pointed out earlier, appellant moved the court to assess attorney's fees against appellees pursuant to section 57.105, but appellees never responded. Thus, the court never had the opportunity to consider appellees' arguments against such fee assessment. These arguments and the authorities relied on by appellees in the pending petitions for rehearing come too late.

Section 57.105(2) does not allow reciprocal contractual attorney’s fees to a party who has no personal liability for fees under the contract.

Suchman Corporate Park, Inc. v. Greenstein · filed 1992-06-16(2)

Moreover, because the mortgagors are not individually liable for fees, even if they win, they are themselves unable to recover fees, as they claim, under section 57.105(2), Florida Statutes (1991) {“If a contract contains a provision allowing attorney’s fees to a party when he is required to take any action to enforce the contract, the court may also allow reasonable attorney’s fees to the other party when that party prevails in any action ... ”) [e.s.].

Section 57.105 does not permit an attorney’s fee award when the need to interpret a revised statute creates a justiciable issue, even if the party loses.

In the Interest of K.C. · filed 1992-07-31

Although our ruling on the summary judgment is adverse to the GAL, we hold the need for interpretation of the revised juvenile code created a justiciable issue which ...precluded an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1990).

Entitlement to attorney's fees under section 57.105(1) need not be specifically pleaded before judgment.

Ganz v. HZJ, INC. · filed 1992-10-08(1)

It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for a party to plead in good faith its entitlement to attorney's fees under section 57.105 before the case is ended. ... Accordingly we answer the certified question in the negative, quash the decision below, and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Section 57.105 supports an award of reasonable attorney's fees for baseless claims unsupported by evidence.

Moral Majority v. BROWARD CTY. CHAP. · filed 1992-11-18

Thereafter appellant filed a motion seeking attorney's fees pursuant to sections 772.104 and 895.05(7), Florida Statutes (1991), and pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1991). ... The limits are, inter alia, those prescribed and proscribed by the statutes relied on by appellant here. Those limits were exceeded by appellees as exemplified by the trial court's finding there was not a scintilla of evidence to support their allegations against appellant. We reverse and remand with instructions to grant reasonable attorney's fees to appellant.

Section 57.105(2) permits a court to award reasonable attorney's fees to a prevailing party when the contract gives the other party fees for enforcement.

Lanahan Lumber Co., Inc. v. McDevitt & Street Co. · filed 1993-01-06(2)

The intent of § 57.105(2) is to provide mutuality of attorney's fees as a remedy in contract cases.

Section 57.105(1) provides for trial-level attorney’s fees when the opposing lawsuit is frivolous in law and fact.

Anderson v. Oldham · filed 1993-07-30(1)

As a result, based on section 57.105(1), Florida Statutes, the trial court erred in not awarding attorney’s fees to Dr. Anderson at the trial level.

Section 57.105 does not automatically entitle a party who wins the judgment to attorney’s fees.

Pintar v. Coates · filed 1993-08-11

We affirm the final judgments entered in favor of appellees in all respects except the trial court’s determination that Lake Worth Herald and Jay Kravetz were entitled to attorney’s fees pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1991), which we reverse.

Section 57.105 does not support an attorney’s fee award without a trial court finding that supports it.

Singer Products, Inc. v. Tecnecol, Ltda. · filed 1993-10-05

Also, there was no finding by the trial court which would support an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to Section 57.105, Fla.Stat. (1990).

Section 57.105 authorizes appellate attorney's fees for work performed after controlling precedent leaves no justiciable issue on appeal.

Sykes v. St. Andrews School · filed 1993-11-03

Thus when appellants filed their initial brief on this appeal, which was not due until after Ganz became final, appellants knew or should have known there were no justiciable issues to raise on this appeal. We therefore grant appellees' motion for section 57.105 attorney's fees for this appeal, but limit it to all work performed by counsel for appellee after Ganz became final.

Section 57.105 permits appellate attorney's fees when the losing party raises no justiciable issue, rendering the appeal completely untenable.

Branch v. Charlotte County · filed 1993-12-01

There must be a complete absence of a justiciable issue raised by the losing party, which renders the action completely untenable. ... Because we may not address the only argument Branch has raised in her briefs, there is a complete absence of a justiciable issue in this appeal. Under these limited circumstances, we grant West Charlotte Utilities' motion for attorney's fees and remand to the trial court for determination of the amount to be awarded.

Section 57.105 fees for an action brought by HRS on a parent's behalf must be assessed against HRS rather than the parent individually.

Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services, State ex rel. Bollheimer v. Bollheimer · filed 1994-03-04

Assuming, arguendo, that there was ample basis for a section 57.105 fee award, that fee should have been assessed against HRS rather than against Larry Bollheimer, individually.

A party seeking reciprocal attorney's fees under subsection 57.105(2) must plead entitlement to them unless a recognized exception applies.

Res Panel Refrig. v. Bill Collins Refrig. · filed 1994-05-10(2)

After judgment, the defendants moved for attorney's fees under subsection 57.105(2), Florida Statutes (1991). ... Under the decision in Stockman v. Downs, 573 So.2d 835 (Fla. 1991), "[a] party seeking attorney's fees pursuant to statute or contract must plead entitlement to such fees." Id. at 838. Defendant did not do so in this case, and none of the exceptions recognized in Stockman v. Downs, see id., are applicable here.

Section 57.105(2) does not automatically entitle a party to attorney’s fees after it obtains summary judgment on contract claims.

Davis v. Weldon · filed 1995-04-05(2)

On appeal, we affirm the denial of the Davises’ request for attorney’s fees under the mortgage and promissory note and section 57.105(2). Finding that material issues of fact and law still exist, we reverse the summary judgments in favor of the Davises on the contract issues raised in Counts I, II, III, V and VII of Weldon’s third amended complaint.

Section 57.105 requires appellate attorney's fees when an appeal has no justiciable basis in law or fact, even if counsel was initially misled by the client.

Morrone v. STATE FARM FIRE & CAS. INS. · filed 1995-05-31

Section 57.105, Florida Statutes provides that a court "shall" award attorney's fees to the prevailing party where there is "a complete absence of a justiciable issue of either law or fact," and further provides that the attorney's fees shall be borne equally by the losing party and the losing party's counsel unless counsel has "acted in good faith, based on representations of his client." While we can see where, in the present case, counsel may have been mislead by his client into initially bringing this lawsuit, by the time the decision was made to file this appeal, it was clear that there was no basis in law or fact for this claim. ... We affirm and direct the trial court to award appellate attorney's fees and costs under section 57.105, Florida Statutes.

Section 57.105(2)’s reciprocal attorney fee remedy does not apply to a proceeding to determine whether a contract debt is dischargeable.

Barnett Bank of Tampa, N.A. v. Maestrelli (In Re Maestrelli) · filed 1994-07-28(2)

Thus, the mutuality of remedy provisions of Fla.Stat. § 57.105(2) does not apply in the present instance notwithstanding TranSouth.

Section 57.105(2) treats a plaintiff who prevails and recovers damages on a breach-of-contract issue as a prevailing party when the alternative theories of recovery involve essentially the same issues.

Perez v. Memorial Sales, Inc. · filed 1995-05-24(2)

Because the plaintiff prevailed and recovered damages on the substantive issue of breach of contract, he is, in essence, a “prevailing” party for purposes of applying section 57.105(2).

Section 57.105(1) authorizes attorney's fees against a party and its attorneys when a complaint raises no justiciable issue of law or fact and lacks good faith based on the client's representation.

PTS Trading Corp. v. Habie · filed 1996-04-17(1)

We affirm the summary judgments and, pursuant to the motions filed by appellees, award attorney's fees under section 57.105(1), Florida Statutes (1993), against appellant and his attorneys because there was a complete absence of (1) a justiciable issue of either law or fact raised by this complaint, and (2) good faith, based on the client's representation.

Section 57.105 permits an attorney's fee award for frivolous objections to a fee claim asserted solely to coerce a reduction.

Bitterman v. Bitterman · filed 1996-10-02

Finally, we find no error in the trial court's determination of entitlement and the granting to appellees of additional fees as the prevailing parties in these fee disputes. The court specifically found that the Bittermans' objections to Boose, Casey's fees were frivolous and without merit and were asserted for the sole purpose of coercing a reduction in fees. With even more specificity, the court found that Boose, Casey was entitled to fees based on section 57.105, Florida Statutes, and as prevailing party in the fee dispute, awarded the firm additional fees. The court further found justification for the award of the additional fees based on the holding of In re Estate of Duval, 174 So.2d 580 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965) and the application of section 733.617, Florida Statutes. We agree with the trial court's well-reasoned findings and analysis and affirm the award of additional fees to both Boose, Casey and Matwiczyk.

Section 57.105 provides no basis on this record for awarding the guardian’s attorney fees for trial-level services.

Sugarman v. Galbut · filed 1997-04-23

In so doing we note that we have thoroughly reviewed this record and find no legal basis for an award of attorney’s fees under section 57.105, Florida Statutes.

Section 57.105 permits a court to assess fees against a party.

Lenox v. Bill Whitaker, Chartered · filed 1997-12-05

Upon review of the record, we find no basis to conclude that the lower court reversibly erred in assessing fees against appellant pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1995).

Section 57.105(1) limits fees assessed against a would-be plaintiff to the attorney time attributable to his attempt to join the lawsuit.

Kelly v. Tworoger · filed 1998-01-28(1)

We affirm the trial court's assessment of attorney's fees against Daniel Kelly under section 57.105(1), Florida Statutes (1995), but reverse as to the amount of fees awarded against him. The trial court assessed the identical amount of fees against both appellants; the amount of fees to be awarded against Daniel Kelly should be limited to that amount of time attributable to his aborted attempt to become a party plaintiff in the lawsuit.

A motion for attorney’s fees under section 57.105(1) may be remanded for a hearing to determine the fees.

Kern v. Miller Electric Co. · filed 1998-02-25(1)

Miller Electric Co. cross-appealed the denial of its motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to section 57.105(1), Florida Statutes. We reverse' the order denying attorney’s fees and remand with instructions to conduct a hearing to determine same.

Section 57.105(2) does not require an award of contractual prevailing party attorney's fees when the court finds that neither party prevailed.

KCIN, INC. v. Canpro Investments, Ltd. · filed 1996-06-07(2)

We affirm the denial based on section 57.105 because we agree with the trial court's refusal to name a prevailing party, but certify conflict with decisions of the Third and Fourth District Courts of Appeal. ... Therefore, we hold that an attorney's fee award is not required each time there is litigation involving a contract providing for prevailing party fees.

Section 57.105 fees cannot stand when the recipient loses prevailing-party status and the finding that no justiciable issue exists is therefore erroneous.

Paramount Engineering Group, Inc. v. Michelson · filed 1997-01-08

Since Michelson has lost his prevailing party status, it follows that the trial court erred in finding the absence of any justiciable issue in awarding section 57.105 fees to Michelson.

Section 57.105(2) does not entitle a person to attorney’s fees under a contract when there is no evidence that the person agreed to be responsible for its terms.

Edwards v. Wills · filed 1996-12-27(2)

Ward further argues, however, that the trial court’s decision to award him attorney’s fees is supported by section 57.105(2), Florida Statutes (1995). We also disagree with that contention since, as stated above, there is no evidence that he agreed to be responsible for the terms of the note and mortgage.

Section 57.105(2) does not allow reciprocal attorney’s fees for a federal bankruptcy dischargeability action because that action is not one with respect to the contract.

In the Matter of Robert Sheridan, Debtor-Appellant · filed 1997-03-12(2)

In our view, then, this federal action does not qualify as one "with respect to the contract" under the Florida statute.

Section 57.105(2) does not authorize contractual attorney's fees against plaintiffs who have no direct or subrogated rights under the contracts.

Stewart v. Tasnet, Inc. · filed 1998-04-15(2)

The plaintiffs lost in the trial court because they were not parties to those contracts. They had no right of contractual subrogation and never alleged a claim directly on the contracts. They failed to establish a basis for subrogation because they had received stock in consideration for providing the letters of credit without reserving a conventional, i.e., contractual right to subrogation, and were not equitably entitled to assume the rights of a party to the contracts under legal subrogation. We conclude that section 57.105(2) does not authorize an award of fees under these circumstances.

Section 57.105 permits an award of attorney’s fees when a petition has no basis in law or fact.

Heitman v. Caceres · filed 1998-11-04

Because the appellee had already initiated probate proceedings in Costa Rica, and because those proceedings were still pending, we find no basis in law or fact for the appellee’s petitions here. ... Accordingly, we reverse and remand with directions to the trial court to award the appellant attorney’s fees pursuant to Section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1997).

Section 57.105(2) makes a unilateral contractual prevailing-party attorney's fee clause reciprocal only for claims the clause covers.

Indemnity Ins. Co. v. Chambers · filed 1999-03-17(2)

Section 57.105(2) renders bilateral a unilateral contractual clause for prevailing party attorney's fees. We hold that the trial court erred in determining that the provision for prevailing party attorney's fees in the underlying rental contract included attorney's fees incurred in the event of liability for personal or property damage. The contract provided for attorney's fees for collection of charges due under the agreement; the term "charges," in this contract, clearly did not include costs of reimbursement for personal injury or property damages caused by the renter.

Section 57.105(2) makes contractual attorney's fee provisions reciprocal once the prevailing party is determined.

Landry v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. · filed 1999-04-27(2)

However, we believe the discretion granted by use of "may" pertains to the determination of a prevailing party in an action founded on a contract. ... Once the prevailing party determination has been made, we believe section 57.105(2) "now mandates that contractual attorney's fees provisions be reciprocal obligations."

Section 57.105 does not justify attorney’s fees merely because a claim is incorrect; the claim must be sufficiently unsubstantial.

Dodich v. Washington International Insurance · filed 1999-06-16

... but (b) reverse the awards of section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1997), attorney’s fees assessed in favor of Washington International Insurance Company and Hartford Casualty Insurance Company, the sureties on bonds posted pursuant to the Yacht and Ship Brokers’ Act, Chapter 326, Florida Statutes (1997), on the ground that, while incorrect, the claims against them were not so unsubstantial as to justify those fees.

Section 57.105 requires a sufficient record basis for an award of attorney’s fees.

Walborsky v. Bajoczky · filed 1999-10-12

The trial court had an insufficient record basis for concluding attorney’s fees were awardable under section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1995). Accordingly, the petition for writ of certiorari is GRANTED and the order of the trial court is QUASHED.

Section 57.105(2) allows a prevailing party to recover attorney's fees under a contractual fee provision that grants fees to the other party.

Gibbs Const. Co. v. SL Page Corp. · filed 2000-04-14(2)

The general contract, when read in pari materia with section 57.105(2), Florida Statutes (Supp.1988), [6] entitled Gibbs and Fidelity to their attorney's fees if they were "required to institute or defend any legal proceedings in connection with [the][c]ontract."

Section 57.105(2) does not make a one-sided contractual fee provision reciprocal when no contract existed between the parties.

Hanna v. Beverly Enterprises-Florida · filed 1999-07-07(2)

We agree that the trial court correctly refused to award fees. ... The present case is distinguishable from Katz in that in the present case no contract ever existed between these parties.

Section 57.105(2) allows a prevailing tenant to recover attorney's fees when a lease lets the landlord recover fees for enforcing it.

Tri-County v. Cpt · filed 1999-07-14(2)

Section 57.105(2) allows for a tenant to recover fees where he is the prevailing party as a result of a contract provision which provides that the landlord shall recover fees if he must hire an attorney to enforce the terms of the lease.

Section 57.105(2) allows reciprocal attorney's fees only within the scope of the contract's fee provision.

Anderson Columbia Co., Inc. v. STATE DEPT. OF TRANS. · filed 1999-11-10(2)

We approve the lower court's construction of the contract and statute. In so concluding, we decline to place the broad interpretation on the "any action" language of the statute, which Anderson Columbia urges. It is obvious that if FDOT had recovered damages in a contractual action against Anderson Columbia, apart from an action on the bond, it would not be entitled to fees. Its right to fees, and Anderson Columbia's concomitant right to same, if it had successfully defended, arises solely from the contract and Paragraph 3-5.3 dealing with actions against the bond.

Section 57.105(2) permits a court to award attorney's fees to the prevailing party in an action to enforce a contract that allows recovery of fees.

Rochlin v. Cunningham · filed 1999-08-04(2)

Section 57.105(2) gives the trial court discretion to award attorney's fees to the prevailing party in any action, when it involves a contract allowing recovery of fees, and the party is required to take action to enforce the contract.

Section 57.105(1) permits attorney’s fees for defending an untenable post-judgment rehearing motion collateral to otherwise non-frivolous litigation.

Preyer v. Aries Insurance Co. · filed 2001-01-17(1)

In this case, the litigation had ended, and Appellants pursued an untimely and untenable motion for rehearing. This was collateral to the non-frivolous complaint and litigation, and the trial court acted within its authority to award Appellee attorney’s fees under section 57.105(1), Florida Statutes (1997).

Section 57.105(1) allows attorney's fees from the point an initially justiciable suit becomes frivolous.

Weatherby Associates, Inc. v. Ballack · filed 2001-03-28(1)

However, there was substantial competent evidence that the suit became frivolous after it was filed. Therefore, the trial court should have awarded appellees attorney's fees only from the point that they had to defend a frivolous suit rather than from the point that suit was filed.

Section 57.105 permits an award of appellate attorney’s fees against both an appellant and counsel.

Gordo v. Saad · filed 2001-08-08

The appellees’ motion for appellate attorney’s fees is granted against the appellant pursuant to the promissory note sued upon and against both the appellant and counsel under section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2000).

Section 57.105 does not authorize attorney's fees merely because a complaint fails to state a cause of action.

Stagl v. Bridgers · filed 2002-02-13

However, merely failing to state a cause of action is not sufficient, in and of itself, to support a finding that the claim was so lacking in merit as to justify an award of attorney's fees pursuant to section 57.105.

Section 57.105 requires substantial, competent evidence in the record to support a finding that a party is entitled to attorney's fees.

Mason v. HIGHLANDS COUNTY BD. OF COM'RS · filed 2002-05-08(1)

A finding that a party is entitled to recover attorney's fees under section 57.105 must be based upon substantial, competent evidence presented at the hearing on attorney's fees or otherwise before the court and in the record.

Section 57.105 requires substantial, competent evidence in the record to support a finding of entitlement to attorney’s fees.

Mason v. Highlands County Board of County Commissioners · filed 2002-05-08

A finding that a party is entitled to recover attorney’s fees under section 57.105 must be based upon substantial, competent evidence presented at the hearing on attorney’s fees or otherwise before the court and in the record.

Section 57.105(5) makes a unilateral contractual attorney’s fee provision reciprocal, but a party must plead its claim for those fees before dismissal.

Concrete & Lumber Enterprises Corp. v. Guaranty Business Credit Corp. · filed 2002-08-21(5)

This section is not an independent fee authorization; rather it provides a means to treat contracting parties equally where one party’s fees are contractually provided.

Section 57.105(5) makes a contractual attorney's fee provision that benefits one party available to the other party as well.

AJAX PAVING INDUSTRIES, INC. v. Hardaway Co. · filed 2002-08-30(5)

Though the contract provision at issue referenced Hardaway only, it reciprocally applied to Ajax pursuant to section 57.105(5).

Appellate attorney's fees under section 57.105 require a motion in the appellate court; without one, the trial court lacks jurisdiction to award them.

Cisneros v. Cisneros · filed 2002-11-27

As concerns the appellate attorney's fees, because no motion for attorney's fees was made in this court, the trial court was without jurisdiction to award the same. ... This is true even when such fees are sought pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2001).

Section 57.105 does not justify attorney's fees against plaintiffs for joining and retaining a government agency when no agency admits responsibility for the sidewalk at issue.

Munoz v. City of Miami · filed 2003-09-03

We agree with the appellants that with no government agency admitting its responsibility to maintain the sidewalk at issue, the decision to bring DOT into, and to keep DOT in, the case did not justify the award of 57.105 fees.

Section 57.105 did not warrant attorney's fees for these nursing-home negligence and residents' rights claims under either the 2001 or prior version.

Estate of Youngblood v. Halifax Convalescent Center, Ltd. · filed 2004-01-23

We affirm, finding that this lawsuit was not one for which section 57.105 fees should have been awarded, under either the 2001 version of the statute or the prior version, whichever may be applicable.

Section 57.105 requires a showing that a claim was frivolous, unsupported by material facts, or unsupported by the application of law to those facts before attorney's fees may be awarded.

Seminole County v. Koziara · filed 2004-08-20

Either statute requires a showing that the plaintiff's claim was frivolous, unsupported by material facts, or unsupported by the application of law to the material facts. See Torres v. City of Orlando, 264 F.Supp.2d 1046, 1049 (M.D.Fla.2003) (citing Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412, 421-22, 98 S.Ct. 694, 54 L.Ed.2d 648 (1978)); § 57.105, Fla. Stat.; Read v. Taylor, 832 So.2d 219, 222 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). In this case, the trial court found that Appellees' claims did not meet the threshold, and we find no error.

Section 57.105(6) does not extend contractual attorney's fee reciprocity to parties who are not in privity.

McCarthy Bros. Co. v. Tilbury Const., Inc. · filed 2003-03-10(6)

Additionally, parties not in privity cannot benefit from the reciprocity provisions of section 57.105(6), Florida Statutes.

Section 57.105(6) does not entitle a nonparty to a mortgage to recover fees under its attorney’s fee provision.

Novastar Mortgage, Inc. v. Strassburger · filed 2003-07-30(6)

Although Novastar prevailed against the title insurer in its action, it did not prevail against the Strassburgers, and the trial court awarded the Strassburgers attorney’s fees based on the attorney’s fee provision in the original mortgage and section 57.105(6), Florida Statutes, which made that unilateral attorney’s fees provision reciprocal. Because the Strassburgers were not parties to the mortgage, they were not entitled to recover attorney’s fees under the mortgage.

Section 57.105(2) makes a contractual attorney’s fee provision that favors one party reciprocal.

Fleet Services Corp. v. Reise · filed 2003-09-12(2)

Although this agreement specifically provides that only the borrower is obligated to the bank, section 57.105(2) renders such an agreement reciprocal in application.

Section 57.105(6) permits reciprocal attorney fees when a party prevails on a distinct contract counterclaim preserved by stipulation.

Orix Capital Markets v. Park Avenue Assoc. · filed 2004-08-13(6)

Finally, the investigation and prosecution of the counterclaim, filed only after the voluntary dismissal of the plaintiff's suit, was entirely separate from the initial claim. Therefore, because the borrowers prevailed on their action for recoupment, they were entitled to an award of attorney fees.

Section 57.105(6) makes a contractual attorney’s fee provision reciprocal only for actions within the provision’s scope.

Subway Restaurants, Inc. v. Thomas · filed 2003-10-29(6)

These actions never triggered Subway's limited entitlement to attorney's fees. Therefore, Thomas was not entitled to his fees under section 57.105(6).

Section 57.105(6) makes a contractual attorney’s fee provision reciprocal, allowing a prevailing debtor to recover fees in a dischargeability proceeding when the creditor could have recovered fees under the contract.

Cadle Co. v. Martinez · filed 2005-07-13(6)

Here, the debtor prevailed, and there was a contractual right to attorney’s fees under the “Business Note and Security Agreement” contract between the debtor and creditor when it was read in light of the Florida’s attorney’s fee reciprocity statute, which was incorporated into the contract by operation of law.

Section 57.105 does not support an attorney's fee award for an action that is neither frivolous nor devoid of merit.

STATE, DEPT. OF HIGHWAY SAFETY v. Tarman · filed 2005-10-19

Additionally, we reverse the trial court's award of attorney's fees under section 57.105, Florida Statutes, as this action was not frivolous or devoid of merit.

Section 57.105(5) requires an administrative law judge to consider a request for attorney’s fees under that subsection, and the judge’s decision is a final order subject to judicial review.

Jain v. Florida Agricultural & Mechanical University · filed 2005-10-20(5)

By the explicit terms of the statute, a request for an award of attorney’s fees made pursuant to section 57.105(5) is to be considered by the administrative law judge. A decision by the judge on such a request is a final order subject to judicial review pursuant to section 120.68.

A party seeking section 57.105 attorney's fees must show that the challenged claim lacked a basis in law or fact.

Gallagher v. Dupont · filed 2005-12-09

However, because the Fund as a nonparty cannot make a collateral attack on the terms of the agreement, it logically cannot contend there was no basis in law or fact to support Dupont's claims. We conclude the Fund is therefore not entitled to section 57.105 attorney's fees.

Section 57.105(7) makes a one-sided contractual attorney’s fee provision reciprocal for litigation covered by that provision.

Inland Dredging Co. v. Panama City Port Authority · filed 2005-12-28(7)

Although the fee provision in § 13.09.A. runs by its terms only in favor of defendant, the provision is mutual by virtue of Florida Statutes § 57.105(7). Because defendant could have recovered fees had it prevailed on this portion of the counterclaim, plaintiff may recover fees for successfully defending the same portion of the counterclaim.

Section 57.105 permits appellate attorney's fees when an appellant knew or should have known the claims lacked legal and factual merit.

Dunn v. Kean · filed 2006-03-14

Appellee moves for attorney's fees pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2005), which enables this court to sanction Appellant with fees if he knew or should have known his claims were legally and factually without merit. ... Appellant should have known his claims were legally and factually without merit. ... Accordingly, we grant Appellee's motion for attorney's fees pursuant to section 57.105 and remand to the trial court to determine the amount.

Section 57.105 permits appellate attorney's fees when appellants knew or should have known their claims lacked support in the material facts or existing law.

Morales v. Marques · filed 2006-05-12(1)

Additionally, Marques has filed a motion for appellate attorney's fees pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes, arguing that the appeal is frivolous. We agree. ... We find that Mr. and Mrs. Morales knew or should have known that their claims on appeal, when presented to this Court, were not supported by the material facts necessary to establish error below, nor were they supported by the application of existing law to those material facts. ... Accordingly, we remand this issue to the trial court to assess reasonable attorney's fees incurred by Marques as a result of defending this appeal.

Section 57.105 does not allow fees for time spent litigating a request for attorney's fees.

Carnes v. Fender · filed 2006-05-17

Their request is based on the premise that Fender is inappropriately requesting fees because the settlement offers were invalid. See § 57.105, Fla. Stat. (2005). However, a party cannot receive fees for the time spent litigating fees. Mediplex Constr. of Fla., Inc. v. Schaub, 856 So.2d 13 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Therefore, the Carneses' request for appellate fees is denied.

Section 57.105(7) allows a customer who succeeds on a contract claim to recover attorney's fees when the contract provides for fees in favor of the other party.

Rollins, Inc. v. Butland · filed 2006-06-30(7)

In addition, the Contract contains a provision for the award of attorney's fees in favor of Orkin. Thus consumers who successfully prosecute an action for breach of contract against Orkin could recover their attorney's fees on that claim as well. See § 57.105(7), Fla. Stat.

Section 57.105(1) permits attorney's fees to be assessed against an appellant and its counsel for pursuing a frivolous appeal.

Gables Club v. Gables Condominium and Club · filed 2006-11-29(1)

Additionally, by separate order, and after notice to the parties, this court has assessed attorney's fees against appellant and appellant's counsel for pursuing this frivolous appeal, pursuant to section 57.105(1), Florida Statutes (2006).

Section 57.105(7) allows a party who prevails on a contract claim to recover attorney's fees when the contract awards fees to the opposing party.

Rollins, Inc. v. Butland · filed 2006-12-15(7)

In addition, the Contract contains a provision for the award of attorney's fees in favor of Orkin. Thus consumers who successfully prosecute an action for breach of contract against Orkin could recover their attorney's fees on that claim as well. See § 57.105(7), Fla. Stat.

Section 57.105 does not justify attorney’s fees merely because a party obtained summary judgment when the opposing position had a justiciable basis.

Army Aviation Heritage Foundation & Museum, Inc. v. Buis · filed 2007-03-28(1)

Here, although AAHF was successful in obtaining summary judgment against Defendants, I find that Defendants’ contentions were not so baseless, frivolous, or unsupported by the material facts as to justify an award of attorneys’ fees under § 57.105.

Section 57.105(7) requires reciprocal contractual attorney’s fees for a prevailing party, but entitlement to those fees must be specifically pleaded.

In Re Full Gospel Assembly of Delray Beach · filed 2007-05-08(7)

The Debtor asserts that it was entitled to attorneys fees and costs and sanctions based on the theory that once a prevailing party has been determined, section 57.105(7) makes a contractual fee provision a reciprocal obligation — which the court is without discretion to decline to enforce. ... The Debtor has carried its burden and established that this Court incorrectly applied the law in its Order. ... This Court previously interpreted section 57.105(7) incorrectly, but the Debtor has never fulfilled a critical requirement of moving for attorneys fees and costs — specifically alleging entitlement to attorneys fees and costs in the pleadings.

Section 57.105 permits an award of appellate attorney's fees when the appellant knew or should have known its claim lacked legal merit.

Eastern Industries v. Uac · filed 2007-07-20(1)

An award of appellate fees under section 57.105 is appropriate here because Appellant knew or should have known that its claim on appeal lacked legal merit, in that the wording of the referee's recommendation so clearly set forth the standards she used, and these standards were correct.

Section 57.105 authorizes appellate attorney’s fees for defending a judgment amount counsel knew or should have known was unsupported by existing law.

Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Voigt · filed 2008-01-04(1)

We conclude that Ms. Voigt's counsel knew or should have known that his proposed final judgment was not supported by existing law when he presented it for entry to the trial court, and his defense of the amount of the final judgment in this appeal was without merit. We grant Nationwide's motion for appellate attorneys' fees pursuant to section 57.105 and remand for the trial court to determine the reasonable fees incurred by Nationwide in prosecuting this appeal as to that claim only.

Section 57.105(1) permits attorney's fees for an insufficiently supported claim or defense without requiring a complete absence of a justiciable issue.

Gopman v. DEPARTMENT OF EDUC. · filed 2008-02-25(1)

Significantly, section 57.105, Florida Statutes, does not require a party seeking fees to show the complete absence of a justiciable issue of fact or law, but permits fees to be recovered for any claim or defense that is insufficiently supported.

Section 57.105(5) allows reciprocal attorney's fees when a declaratory action is substantively equivalent to the contract enforcement action covered by the other party's fee clause.

Escambia County v. UIL FAMILY LTD. · filed 2008-03-25(5)

We find no basis to conclude that the Developers' lawsuit, even though it sought declaratory and injunctive relief, so differed from the enforcement action envisioned in the guarantees that section 57.105 would not apply to award the Developers reciprocal attorney's fees.

Section 57.105 permits an award of appellate attorney's fees against a party and counsel for a frivolous, repetitive appeal.

Ayala v. Gonzalez · filed 2008-05-02

Every litigant is entitled to one bite at the apple. Two bites is unfair. Three bites is an abuse of the trial court, the opposing party and this court. Accordingly, we also grant the motion of the appellee, William A. Gonzalez, for appellate attorney's fees against the appellant, Denise Ayala, and her attorney, Rudolph C. Campbell, in accordance with section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2007).

Section 57.105(7)'s mutuality principle prevents a contract from denying prevailing party attorney's fees through a 75% recovery threshold.

Port-A-Weld, Inc. v. Padula & Wadsworth Construction, Inc. · filed 2008-05-21(7)

In our view, failing to recognize Port-A-Weld's entitlement to fees and costs as the prevailing party violates the mutuality principle of § 57.105(7) and pre-existing public policy as articulated in P & C Thompson Bros. [1] We conclude that the Florida Supreme Court's "significant issue" test for prevailing party attorney's fees cannot be contractually modified.

Section 57.105(6) allows a prevailing guarantor to recover reciprocal attorney’s fees when the note and guaranty would have required the guarantor to pay the holder’s fees had the holder prevailed.

Riesterer v. Cadle Co. II · filed 2008-05-21(6)

We must conclude that the Riesterers, had they lost, would have been liable for Cadle’s attorney’s fees incurred in realizing the “collateral” under the note. It follows, therefore, that the Riesterers, as the prevailing parties in the guaranty lawsuit, are entitled to reciprocal attorney’s fees under section 57.105(6).

Section 57.105(7) allows a prevailing party to recover reasonable attorney’s fees in a dischargeability proceeding when the underlying contract gives the other party fees for enforcing it.

CIT Small Business Lending Corp. v. Diaz (In Re Diaz) · filed 2008-09-23(7)

The loan documents contain provisions allowing CIT its attorney’s fees and costs incurred in enforcing the loan terms. The Debtors, as the prevailing parties in this adversary proceeding, are entitled to an award of their reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to Florida Statute Section 57.105(7).

Section 57.105(6) makes a contractual attorney’s fee provision reciprocal for contracts entered into on or after October 1, 1988.

Hingson v. MMI OF FLORIDA, INC. · filed 2009-03-18(6)

Section 57.105(6), Florida Statutes (2002), which applies to contracts entered into on or after October 1, 1988, makes this provision reciprocal.

Section 57.105(1) permits attorney’s fees when a claim is frivolous, based on what the party and counsel knew or should have known during the litigation.

CHUE v. Lehman · filed 2009-11-04(1)

Thus, we must consider the evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing concerning what Lehman and his attorney knew or should have known at that point in the litigation. After reviewing this evidence, we conclude that Lehman and his attorney provided testimony from which the trial court could have reasonably concluded that Lehman’s claim was not frivolous. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Chue’s motion for attorney’s fees.

Section 57.105(7) allows a bankruptcy trustee to claim reciprocal contractual attorney’s fees despite bringing a fraudulent transfer complaint.

Jerk MacHine, Inc. v. Bank of America, N.A. (In Re Jerk MacHine, Inc.) · filed 2010-01-04(7)

But however facially appealing the argument, bringing a fraudulent transfer complaint does not in itself estop a bankruptcy trustee from claiming attorneys’ fees under § 57.105(7).

Section 57.105(7) makes a contractual attorney’s fee provision reciprocal when it grants fees to only one party.

Jerk MacHine, Inc. v. Bank of America, N.A. (In Re Jerk MacHine, Inc.) · filed 2010-03-18(7)

Bank of America certainly knew about the attorney’s fee provision contained in the contract which it drafted and (while Bank of America has expressed its wish for that provision to be one-sided) Florida law makes that provision reciprocal.

Section 57.105(2) allows a prevailing party to recover attorney’s fees in a contract action when the contract gives the other party a right to fees for enforcing it.

Kelsey v. Metro Construction · filed 2010-03-24(2)

We agree with Kelsey that because he prevailed on the significant issue litigated in the trial court (the breach of contract claim) and defeated all the claims brought by Metro, he is entitled to the award of attorney’s fees under the parties’ contract and section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2001).

Section 57.105(7) makes a contractual right to attorneys’ fees reciprocal when the contract awards fees to only one party.

Electric MacHinery Enterprises, Inc. v. Hunt Construction Group, Inc. (In Re Electric MacHinery Enterprises, Inc.) · filed 2009-08-28(7)

Indeed, even if the benefit were limited to HCC, under Florida law, all contract provisions allowing for an award of attorneys’ fees to one party are reciprocal as a matter of law. Fla. Stat. § 57.105(7) (2008).

Section 57.105(7) permits reciprocal contractual attorney’s fees only when both parties to the lawsuit are parties to the contract.

North American Clearing, Inc. v. Brokerage Computer Systems, Inc. · filed 2010-02-04(7)

Florida’s reciprocity statute, Section 57.105(7), Florida Statutes (2009), is not as broad as the California and Oregon reciprocity statutes, as it applies only if both parties to the lawsuit are parties to the contract:... Because Goble is not a party to the contract, Florida’s reciprocity statute does not apply.

Section 57.105 does not authorize excluding an appellant from responsibility for a portion of an attorney’s fee award.

Maradriaga v. 7-ELEVEN · filed 2010-05-14

Because section 57.105 does not authorize the exclusion of Appellant from the responsibility to pay a portion of the fee, on remand for determination of a reasonable fee, the JCC should also determine whether Appellant should be afforded an opportunity to obtain conflict-free counsel.

Section 57.105(5) makes a unilateral contractual provision for prevailing-party attorney’s fees reciprocal.

Shepheard v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas · filed 2010-06-18(5)

The promissory note required Appellant to reimburse Appellee for costs, including reasonable attorney's fees, incurred in enforcing the agreement. Section 57.105(5), Florida Statutes (2009), makes reciprocal any unilateral contractual provision allowing an award of prevailing party attorney’s fees.

Section 57.105(7) allows a prevailing party to recover reasonable attorney’s fees and costs when an enforceable contract contains a fee provision and the action concerns enforcement of that contract.

Kaplus v. Lorenzo in (In Re Lorenzo) · filed 2010-07-22(7)

Section 57.105(7) of the Florida Statutes allows for the recovery of fees and costs by a prevailing party where there is an enforceable contract containing a fee award provision. Section 57.105(7) is applicable to this proceeding because: (i) the Nominee Agreement is a valid, enforceable contract; (ii) it contains a fee award provision; and (iii) this adversary proceeding is, in part, an action to enforce the Nominee Agreement. Debtor is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to the Nominee Agreement and Fla. Stat. Section 57.105(7).

Section 57.105(7) makes a contractual fee provision reciprocal within its scope; a provision limited to collection actions allows the other party fees if she prevails in a collection action.

Florida Hurricane Protection & Awning, Inc. v. Pastina · filed 2010-09-08(7)

Similarly, here the contract provided fees for the contractor in the event of a collection action. Section 57.105(7) requires reciprocity. Reciprocity would allow for the homeowner to receive fees if she prevailed in a collection action brought by the contractor.

Section 57.105(1) permits appellate attorney’s fees to be imposed on both a party and counsel when counsel knew or should have known the appeal lacked merit.

Sullivan v. Sullivan · filed 2010-12-22(1)

Based on the foregoing, we conclude that former husband’s counsel knew or should have known that former husband’s claim on appeal is completely devoid of merit. We grant former wife’s motion and find appellate attorney’s fees should be paid in equal amount by former husband and his attorney pursuant to section 57.105(1), Florida Statutes.

Section 57.105 appellate fees must be based on a lack of merit in the appeal, rather than a lack of merit in the trial court.

Contreras v. 21st Century Insurance Co. · filed 2011-02-11

The appellate court’s award of section 57.105 fees should be based on a lack of merit of the appeal, not at the trial level.

Section 57.105(7) entitled the seller to recover its attorney’s fees against the broker under their contractual fee provision.

Land & Sea Petroleum, Inc. v. Business Specialists, Inc. · filed 2011-01-19(7)

We agree with the seller that it was entitled to recover its attorney’s fees against Specialists pursuant to section 57.105(7).

Section 57.105(7)'s reciprocal attorney’s fee provision does not support a fee award based on a note that selects New York law.

James Ventures, L.P. v. TIMCO Aviation Services, Inc. · filed 2010-11-18(7)

Moreover, TIMCO’s argument based on §57.105(7) fails for the additional reason that the Kellstrom Note provides that New York law applies.

Section 57.105(7) allows reciprocal attorneys’ fees only for contracts entered into on or after October 1, 1988.

First States Investors 3300, LLC v. Pheil · filed 2011-02-11(7)

However, section 57.105(7) specifies that it “applies to any contract entered into on or after October 1, 1988.” Because the contracts in this case were entered into many years prior to that date, First States is not entitled to recover prevailing party attorneys’ fees based on the contracts and section 57.105(7).

Section 57.105(7) allows a defendant to recover prevailing-party attorney’s fees under a reciprocal contractual fee provision after a court dismisses a foreclosure action without prejudice.

Nudel v. Flagstar Bank, FSB · filed 2011-05-18(7)

In this case we hold that a defendant is entitled to recover her attorney’s fees as a prevailing party under subsection 57.105(7), Florida Statutes (2009), after the court granted a motion to dismiss a mortgage foreclosure action and dismissed the case without prejudice.

Section 57.105(7) allows a prevailing party to recover reasonable attorney’s fees when the contract gives the opposing party a right to fees for enforcing it.

Tylinski v. Klein Automotive, Inc. · filed 2012-06-06(7)

Section 57.105(7), Florida Statutes (2011) provides that where a contractual provision permits prevailing party attorneys’ fees to one party when that party is required to take action to enforce the contract, the court may allow reasonable attorneys’ fees to the other party when that other party prevails in the action. Section 57.105(7) thus provides for mutuality of attorneys' fees in contract cases.

Section 57.105(7) allows a prevailing mortgagor to claim attorney’s fees when the mortgage and note allow the lender to recover fees.

Raza v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. · filed 2012-09-21(7)

Clearly, under section 57.105(7), these provisions permit Mr. Raza to claim fees as the prevailing party. However, he must still prove a reasonable fee.

Section 57.105(7) makes a contractual right to attorney’s fees reciprocal, allowing the prevailing opposing party to recover fees.

J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Corp. v. Golden · filed 2012-09-28(7)

The contract provisions provide that the mortgagee is entitled to its attorney’s fees upon prevailing in the action to enforce the note and mortgage. And section 57.105(7) provides that such contractual obligations must be read to be reciprocal.

Section 57.105(7) makes a contractual attorney’s fee provision reciprocal but does not expand the types of actions covered by that provision.

Placida Professional Center, LLC v. Federal Deposit Insurance · filed 2013-03-13(7)

Furthermore, Section 57.105(7), Florida Statutes, which provides for reciprocity of prevailing party attorneys’ fee provisions, cannot be used to expand the scope of contractual fee provisions.

Section 57.105(7) permits a defendant to claim attorney’s fees under a contract that gives the lender a fee right when the defendant prevails after dismissal for failure to prosecute.

Vivot v. Bank of America, NA · filed 2013-06-07(7)

Here, Vivot became the prevailing party when the foreclosure suit was dismissed for failure to prosecute. He gave notice of his claim for fees in his answer and timely filed his motion for attorney’s fees. Pursuant to section 57.105(7), the provisions of the note and mortgage permit Vivot to claim attorney’s fees as the prevailing party.

Section 57.105(7) makes a unilateral contractual attorney’s fees provision reciprocal, but does not apply when the provision already applies equally to both parties.

Sacket v. Sacket · filed 2013-06-19(7)

The attorney’s fees provision in the marital settlement agreement applied to both parties equally, and was therefore not a unilateral provision necessitating the application of section 57.105(7) for reciprocity purposes, and as such, the trial court also erred in relying on section 57.105(7).

Section 57.105(7) gives a prevailing party the same contractual right to attorney’s fees that the contract gives the other party, subject to the fee provision’s terms.

United States Ex Rel. W.W. Gay Mechanical Contractor, Inc. v. Walbridge Aldinger Co. · filed 2013-11-01(7)

Because W.W. Gay is uncontestably a prevailing party in this action, it is entitled to “reasonable attorneys’ fees suffered or incurred by [W.W. Gay] by reason of or as a result of [Walbridge]’s default” on its payment obligation to W.W. Gay.

Section 57.105(7) permits reciprocal application of a contractual attorney’s fee provision but does not expand the provision’s scope.

In re Sagamore Partners, Ltd. · filed 2014-02-26(7)

But § 57.105(7), even if used to apply a contractual attorney’s fee provision reciprocally, cannot be used to expand the scope of that provision.

Section 57.105(7) permits a prevailing party to recover reasonable appellate attorney’s fees when the contract gives the other party a right to fees for enforcement.

Basulto v. Hialeah Automotive, etc. · filed 2014-03-20(7)

Therefore, pursuant to section 57.105(7), the buyers are entitled to an award of reasonable appellate attorney’s fees.

Section 57.105(7) makes a contractual attorney’s fee provision reciprocal and can support an award after the contract merges into a judgment when the party favored by the provision first seeks fees and withdraws its request too late.

Centennial Bank v. Nabavi (In re Nabavi) · filed 2014-08-12(7)

Paragraph twenty-one (21) of the Mortgage Agreement, in conjunction with § 57.105(7) of the Florida Statutes, provided the Nabavi Debtors with an entitlement to those attorneys’ fees. The merger of the Mortgage Agreement into the state court judgment failed to block the application of the fee provision because Centennial was the first party to seek fees, and failed to withdraw or disavow its fee claim until too late in the process.

Section 57.105(1) requires an award of appellate attorney’s fees when the appellant knew or should have known the appeal was frivolous.

Law Offices of Lynn W. Martin, P.A. v. Madson · filed 2014-08-22(1)

Given the mandatory nature of section 57.105 and our finding that the basis for the appeal and the arguments made were groundless, we grant the appellee’s motion for appellate attorney’s fees pursuant to section 57.105.

Section 57.105(7) makes a contractual attorney’s fee provision reciprocal when the party seeking fees prevails under circumstances that would have entitled the other party to fees.

Stratton v. Port St. Lucie MGT, LLC d/b/a Emerald Health Care Center · filed 2014-09-03(7)

In this case, the non-drafting party is enforcing the same type of finding in the same type of action that would have allowed attorney’s fees to Emerald. Because the expansive wording of the provision at issue would have allowed Emerald to recover attorney’s fees if the arbitrators’ findings had been in its favor, under the agreement, Stratton also is entitled to her attorney’s fees and costs.

An award of attorney’s fees under section 57.105 requires an appropriate finding based on the record.

Department of Revenue Ex Rel. Cowie v. Orlowski · filed 2016-01-06

The DOR also challenges the award of attorney’s fees pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes. We reverse and remand to the trial court to make an appropriate finding based on the record.

Section 57.105(7) allows a prevailing party to recover reciprocal attorney’s fees under a contract that was formed but later held unenforceable.

High Bid, LLC v. Everett · filed 2013-06-26(7)

Their contract’s ultimate unenforceability does not alter the fact that a contract was formed between the parties. ... Given Florida law in this area, we conclude that Roebuck Auctions has not shown that the district court erred in granting Everett entitlement to reasonable attorney’s fees.

Section 57.105(7) cannot support a reciprocal contractual attorney's fee award when the party seeking fees proves the opposing party never became a party to the contract.

HFC Collection Center, Inc. v. Alexander · filed 2016-04-22(7)

Alexander cannot employ section 57.105(7) as a basis for an attorney's fees award after she proved that HFC never became a party to the contract.

Section 57.105(7) allows a prevailing party to claim reciprocal contractual attorney’s fees only if that party establishes that they are a party to the contract containing the fee provision.

Florida Community Bank, N.A. v. Red Road Residential, LLC · filed 2016-06-08(7)

Only the parties to a contract may avail themselves of section 57.105(7)’s entitlement to attorney’s fees. The burden lies with the prevailing party to establish, as a threshold matter, her status as a party to the contract.

Section 57.105 requires attorney's fees to be apportioned between the party and counsel.

Wash v. Ferdinand · filed 2016-11-28

Because the trial court erred by failing to apportion the award of attorney's fees between John Wash (“Appellant”) and his counsel, we remand the case to the trial court for entry of an amended order apportioning the fees between Appellant and his counsel as required by section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2014).

Section 57.105(7) does not authorize attorney’s fees under a contractual fee provision when no contract exists between the parties.

Sand Lake Hills v. Busch · filed 2017-01-16(7)

Because the trial court found that no contract existed between Appellant and the Busches, the Busches were not entitled to attorney’s fees under the fee provision of the ARD. Thus, we reverse the order awarding attorney’s fees to the Busches and against Appellant pursuant to the ARD and section 57.105(7).

Section 57.105(7) can make a unilateral attorney fee provision reciprocal even when the provision appears in an indemnity clause.

International Fidelity Insurance Co. v. JV · filed 2017-02-14(7)

Neither the statutory language in Section 57.105 nor the Subcontract makes a distinction between a unilateral attorneys’ fee provision and an indemnity clause.

Section 57.105(7) makes a contractual attorney’s fee right reciprocal when both sides are parties to the contract and the party seeking fees prevails.

Madl v. Wells Fargo Bank · filed 2018-05-14(7)

Reciprocity under section 57.105(7) is available only when, as here, both sides are parties to the contract.

Section 57.105(7) does not make a general indemnity clause reciprocal when the clause does not allow attorney’s fees for an action to enforce the contract between its parties.

International Fidelity Insurance Company v. JV · filed 2018-10-26(7)

Because the general indemnity provision of the subcontract would not allow Americaribe to recover attorney’s fees in an action against CPM to enforce the subcontract, that provision is not a unilateral contract provision for attorney’s fees and thus does not come within the scope of Fla. Stat. § 57.105(7).

Section 57.105(7) permits prevailing-party fees when both parties are bound by a contract containing a fee provision, even if the opposing party failed to prove standing to foreclose.

HARRIS v. THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON · filed 2018-12-28(7)

As such, the Trust became a party to the mortgage contract and was subject to the fee provision therein. And the requirements of section 57.105(7) are satisfied where it can be established that the prevailing party and its opponent are both parties to a contract that contains a prevailing party fee provision. Accordingly, Harris is entitled to an award of attorney's fees from the Trust pursuant to the mortgage contract and section 57.105(7).

Section 57.105(7) entitles a foreclosure defendant to attorneys' fees when the defendant prevails by proving the plaintiff lacked standing when it filed suit, even if the plaintiff had standing at trial.

Floyd v. Bank of Am., N.A. · filed 2019-01-25(7)

Appellant argues that she is entitled to attorneys' fees under section 57.105(7), Florida Statutes (2018), because she prevailed below by proving that while Appellee had standing at the time of trial, it lacked standing at the inception of the foreclosure suit. We agree.

Section 57.105(7) applies only to contracts with unilateral attorney's fee provisions.

Erorentals, LLC v. Yu · filed 2019-06-12(7)

Subpart (7) applies specifically to contracts with unilateral fee provisions. Because no such contract exists here, subpart (7) is inapplicable.

Section 57.105(7) makes a contractual attorney’s fee provision reciprocal only within the provision’s agreed scope; it does not expand the terms of the agreement.

Pier 1 Cruise Experts, Corp. v. Revelex Corp. · filed 2019-07-11(7)

At most, then, § 4.3 can be read to provide a reciprocal right to collect attorneys’ fees “incurred … in collecting delinquent fees.”

Section 57.105(7) does not entitle a prevailing borrower to contractual attorney's fees when the borrower defeats foreclosure by showing that an invalid assignment left the lender outside the contract containing the fee provision.

JOHN W. HOPSON v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST CO., AS INDENTURE TRUSTEE · filed 2019-08-28(7)

Because Hopson could not establish that Deutsche Bank was a party to the mortgage containing the fees provision on which Hopson relied, we affirm the trial court's order denying Hopson attorney's fees pursuant to section 57.105(7).

Section 57.105 requires detailed, specific findings of bad faith for a fee award, and the order should state the supporting facts.

Gonzalez and Leal v. International Park Condominium I Assoc., Inc. · filed 2017-04-26

Moreover, to award attorney’s fees under this statute, the court must make detailed, specific findings of bad faith, and should recite the facts on which it bases its conclusions in the order awarding such fees.

Section 57.105(7) permits prevailing party attorney's fees when the contract provides for them, both litigants are parties to the contract, and the movant prevails.

Madl v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · filed 2017-12-29(7)

In order to obtain prevailing party fees pursuant to section 57.105(7), the moving party must prove three requirements: 1) the contract provides for prevailing party fees, 2) both the movant and opponent are parties to that contract, and 3) the movant prevailed.

Section 57.105(7) does not allow reciprocal contractual attorney's fees when the contract containing the fee provision is void.

Wells Fargo Bank v. Bird · filed 2018-01-01(7)

Thus, because there was no valid contract, it was error to award attorney's fees under either paragraph 22 of the mortgage or the reciprocity rule found in section 57.105(7), Florida Statutes.

Section 57.105(7) permits reciprocal attorney’s fees on a properly pleaded request in an account stated action to collect a credit card balance when the agreement provides for the creditor’s fees.

BUSHNELL v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOC., L L C · filed 2018-09-14(7)

In summary, we conclude that in an action for account stated brought to collect the amount due under a credit card agreement, the reciprocity provision in section 57.105(7) applies to a properly pleaded request for attorney’s fees made pursuant to the terms of the agreement.

Section 57.105(7) does not allow reciprocal fees under a mortgage when the borrower wins by showing that the lender cannot enforce that mortgage.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. v. MICHAEL MOCCIA and DENISE C. MOCCIA · filed 2018-11-07(7)

As we explained in Glass, a party that prevails on its argument that dismissal is required because the plaintiff bank is not entitled to enforce the contract containing the fee provision cannot recover fees based upon a provision in that same contract.

Section 57.105(7) makes a contractual attorney’s fee provision reciprocal when the party seeking fees prevails and is a party to the contract.

GEORGE P. VENEZIA and VICKY VENEZIA v. JP MORGAN MORTGAGE ACQUISITION · filed 2019-02-06(7)

Under section 57.105(7), unilateral attorney’s fees provisions in a contract are deemed reciprocal. See § 57.105(7), Fla. Stat. (2018). The entitlement to fees under section 57.105(7) applies when the party seeking fees prevails and is a party to the contract containing the fee provision. ... In the instant case, JP Morgan voluntarily dismissed its case and JP Morgan alleged in its complaint that it was entitled to enforce the note and mortgage. Significantly, there was never a judicial determination by the trial court that JP Morgan or appellants were not a party to the contract. Based on the foregoing authority, appellants were entitled to attorney’s fees.

Section 57.105(7) allows a prevailing defendant to recover reciprocal contractual attorney's fees when the plaintiff's claim falls within the contract's fee provision, including after a voluntary dismissal.

Calatlantic Grp., Inc. v. Dau · filed 2019-04-18(7)

Provided that the contract is not found to be unenforceable between the parties, if a claim is within the scope of an attorney's fees provision, the party defending against that claim is entitled to attorney's fees pursuant to section 57.105(7) if the party prevails.

Section 57.105(7) allows reciprocal attorney’s fees under a contract’s unilateral fee provision only when a contract exists between the parties.

Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co. v. Fitzgerald · filed 2017-03-01(7)

Section 57.105(7), however, cannot transform a contract’s unilateral fee provision into a reciprocal obligation where, as here, no contract exists between the parties.

Section 57.105(7) allows reciprocal contractual attorney’s fees, but a stranger to the contract cannot recover them.

PNC Bank v. MDTR, LLC · filed 2018-01-29(7)

Section 57.105(7) dictates that this provision would equally apply to the borrower. See § 57.105(7), Fla. Stat. Nonetheless, “a stranger to the contract cannot recover attorney’s fees based on the contract.”

Section 57.105(7) permits reciprocal contractual attorney's fees only for a prevailing party; success on an insignificant reformation count does not qualify when the opposing party obtains foreclosure.

Deutsche Bank, Nat'l Trust Co. v. Quintela · filed 2019-03-27(7)

Under section 57.105(7), "[i]f a contract contains a provision allowing attorney's fees to a party when he or she is required to take any action to enforce the contract, the court may also allow reasonable attorney's fees to the other party when that party prevails in any action, whether as plaintiff or defendant, with respect to the contract." ... Furthermore, Quintela was not the prevailing party. To be entitled to attorneys' fees and costs under a prevailing party statute or contract, the trial court must determine that a party has "prevailed." ... For these reasons, we find that Quintela was not a prevailing party below, and reverse the trial court's order granting Quintela attorneys' fees and costs.