Broida v. Dade County Election & Canvassing Board

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Broida v. Dade County Election & Canvassing Board

551 So. 2d 497, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1143, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 2533, 1989 WL 47185

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 9, 1989

DocketNo. 88-2201

StatusPublished

This text of 551 So. 2d 497 (Broida v. Dade County Election & Canvassing Board) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Broida v. Dade County Election & Canvassing Board, 551 So. 2d 497, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1143, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 2533, 1989 WL 47185 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We have for review an order assessing attorney’s fees against appellant under section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1987). We affirm.

Appellant’s suit was dismissed for want of prosecution, and no appeal was taken from that order. Thereafter appellee New-bold moved for, and was awarded, attorney’s fees under section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1987). Appellant challenges that award, contending that section 57.105 is inapplicable to a suit brought under Florida’s election laws. We reject that assertion, for the applicable statutes contain no such limitation. Section 57.105 was a remedy available to appellee Newbold and, on this record, the trial court properly found appellee was entitled to relief.¹

Appellant also contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the $2,500 awarded. As appellant has not included in the record a transcript or a statement of proceedings, see Fla.R.App.P. 9.200(b)(4), we are unable to evaluate the merits of that portion of her appeal. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank, 377 So.2d 1150, 1152 (Fla.1979); South Florida Apartment Ass’n v. Dansyear, 347 So.2d 710 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 354 So.2d 985 (Fla.1977). Since the proceedings below arrive here clothed with a presumption of correctness, and since appellant has not carried her burden of demonstrating error, we affirm.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

We have for review an order assessing attorney’s fees against appellant under section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1987). We affirm.

Appellant’s suit was dismissed for want of prosecution, and no appeal was taken from that order. Thereafter appellee New-bold moved for, and was awarded, attorney’s fees under section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1987). Appellant challenges that award, contending that section 57.105 is inapplicable to a suit brought under Florida’s election laws. We reject that assertion, for the applicable statutes contain no such limitation. Section 57.105 was a remedy available to appellee Newbold and, on this record, the trial court properly found appellee was entitled to relief.¹

Appellant also contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the $2,500 awarded. As appellant has not included in the record a transcript or a statement of proceedings, see Fla.R.App.P. 9.200(b)(4), we are unable to evaluate the merits of that portion of her appeal. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank, 377 So.2d 1150, 1152 (Fla.1979); South Florida Apartment Ass’n v. Dansyear, 347 So.2d 710 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 354 So.2d 985 (Fla.1977). Since the proceedings below arrive here clothed with a presumption of correctness, and since appellant has not carried her burden of demonstrating error, we affirm.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

551 So. 2d 497, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1143, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 2533, 1989 WL 47185, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/broida-v-dade-county-election-canvassing-board-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack