Opinion

Ware v. Land Title Co. of Florida

  • 582 So. 2d 46
  • 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 5500
  • 1991 WL 101816
Court
District Court of Appeal of Florida
Filed
Jun 12, 1991
Status
Published
Author
Schoonover
On the bench
Altenbernd, Ryder, Schoonover
Cited by
5 cases
Authority
More cited than 79.2%

order awarding attorney's fees based on section 57.105 was technically deficient without express finding of absence of any justiciable issue of either law or fact raised by complaint

How later courts described this case

  • order awarding attorney's fees based on section 57.105 was technically deficient without express finding of absence of any justiciable issue of either law or fact raised by complaint
  • applying de novo review

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

SCHOONOVER, Chief Judge.

The appellant, Richard L. Ware, challenges orders awarding attorney’s fees to the appellees, Land Title Company of Florida, Inc., and Sharon L. Williams. We reverse.

The trial court, after dismissing the appellant’s complaint with prejudice, entered an order awarding attorney’s fees to Land Title Company of Florida, Inc. and another order awarding attorney’s fees to Sharon L. Williams. Both awards were based upon section 57.105(1), Florida Statutes (1989). The appellant filed timely notices of appeal from each of the orders, and the appeals have been consolidated.

The appellant does not contend that the trial court erred in dismissing his complaint with- prejudice because it did not state a cause of action against the appel-lees. He does, however, contend that the court erred in awarding attorney’s fees to the appellees. We agree.

Before attorney’s fees can be awarded to the prevailing party under section 57.105(1), the court must find an absence of any justiciable issue of either law or fact raised by the complaint or defense of the losing party. This finding must be express and without it an order awarding such fees is technically deficient and must be reversed. Whitten v. Progressive Casualty Ins. Co., 410 So.2d 501 (Fla.1982); *47 Maryland Casualty Ins. Co. v. Semmer Elec., Inc., 535 So.2d 670 (Fla.2d DCA 1988); Apgar & Markham Constr., Inc. v. Macasphalt, Inc., 424 So.2d 41 (Fla.2d DCA 1982). The orders in this case did not contain the necessary findings and, therefore, were deficient.

We, accordingly, reverse and remand with directions to make an appropriate finding based on the record. If the court expressly finds the absence of any justicia-ble issue of either law or fact, it may reassess attorney’s fees, but in doing so must follow the dictates of Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145 (Fla.1985), holding modified by Standard Guaranty Ins. Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So.2d 828 (Fla.1990).

Reversed and remanded.

RYDER and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.