City of Oakland Park v. Best

District Court of Appeal of Florida

City of Oakland Park v. Best

474 So. 2d 882, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2048, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 15595

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 28, 1985

DocketNo. 83-2263

StatusPublished

This text of 474 So. 2d 882 (City of Oakland Park v. Best) 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

City of Oakland Park v. Best, 474 So. 2d 882, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2048, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 15595 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The City of Oakland Park appeals a declaratory final judgment and a judgment taxing costs and fees against it. These judgments arose from an action in which two former city councilmen challenged the City’s attempt, through various ordinances, to terminate their receipt of pension benefits. The trial court, after taking testimony and hearing argument from counsel, found in favor of the former councilmen on all points.

Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the City has not demonstrated the existence of error in any material respect, save one. The lower court, pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1983), assessed attorney’s fees against the City on the theory that it failed to raise a justiciable issue of either law or fact. After reviewing the record as a whole, we believe it cannot be said that the position taken by the City was frivolous or wholly devoid of arguable substance. See Whit-ten v. Progressive Casualty Co., 410 So.2d 501 (Fla.1982); Wall v. Department of Transportation, 455 So.2d 1138 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Consequently, we reverse the award of attorney’s fees under section 57.-105; otherwise, the judgment is affirmed.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART.

DOWNEY and HURLEY, JJ., and GOLDMAN, MURRAY, Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The City of Oakland Park appeals a declaratory final judgment and a judgment taxing costs and fees against it. These judgments arose from an action in which two former city councilmen challenged the City’s attempt, through various ordinances, to terminate their receipt of pension benefits. The trial court, after taking testimony and hearing argument from counsel, found in favor of the former councilmen on all points.

Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the City has not demonstrated the existence of error in any material respect, save one. The lower court, pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1983), assessed attorney’s fees against the City on the theory that it failed to raise a justiciable issue of either law or fact. After reviewing the record as a whole, we believe it cannot be said that the position taken by the City was frivolous or wholly devoid of arguable substance. See Whit-ten v. Progressive Casualty Co., 410 So.2d 501 (Fla.1982); Wall v. Department of Transportation, 455 So.2d 1138 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Consequently, we reverse the award of attorney’s fees under section 57.-105; otherwise, the judgment is affirmed.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART.

DOWNEY and HURLEY, JJ., and GOLDMAN, MURRAY, Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

474 So. 2d 882, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2048, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 15595, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-oakland-park-v-best-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack