Arbitration & Mediation

Lawyer Dodges 57.105 Sanctions Due to Lack of Express Finding

By Christopher B. Hopkins, Esq.

Like the Proposal for Settlement, Florida Statute 57.105 was enacted (and revised) in order to shorten needless litigation. Relative to 57.105, it was a sword against the sometimes-phantom, sometimes-real "frivilous" lawsuits. We rarely see appeals on this Rule and, anecdotally, we doubt many of these are even filed despite the fact that the threat is likely made on a daily basis.

The Fourth District, in Mark Perlman, P.A. v. Ameriquest Mortgage Company, Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, Mortgage Information Services, et al., gave us little information about the underlying dispute which resulted in a 57.105 motion filed against the plaintiff and counsel.

Ultimately, the Broward circuit court judge granted sanctions against the plaintiff and plaintiff's counsel for bringing a frivolous case.

The Panel (Stevenson, May, and LaBarga) barely cited the rule and instead relied upon case law that, to sanction a lawyer, the trial court must make an express finding that the claim was frivolous (bad client) AND an express finding that the lawyer was not acting in good faith based upon the representations of his client (bad lawyer). In this case, the second express finding didn't exist. Order reversed.

Again, we do not know the underlying facts of the case or whether there is an issue of right or wrong here. But we do have to tip our hat to the plaintiff lawyer who overcame four other law firms, stretching from Hallandale Beach to Tampa, who were opposing him and seeking fees.

Full post as published by Florida Arbitration Law on September 30, 2008 (boomark / email).