Delta Fire Sprinklers, Inc. v. SouthTrust Bank, N.A.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Delta Fire Sprinklers, Inc. v. SouthTrust Bank, N.A.

940 So. 2d 1164, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 14941, 2006 WL 2570590

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 8, 2006

DocketNo. 5D05-3177

StatusPublished

This text of 940 So. 2d 1164 (Delta Fire Sprinklers, Inc. v. SouthTrust Bank, N.A.) 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

Delta Fire Sprinklers, Inc. v. SouthTrust Bank, N.A., 940 So. 2d 1164, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 14941, 2006 WL 2570590 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

EVANDER, J.

We affirm the trial court’s decision awarding appellee, SouthTrust Bank, N.A., attorney’s fees pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2008). SouthTrust and others had been sued by appellant Delta Fire Sprinklers (“Delta”) in an effort to be paid for its work on a construction project.

The record reflects the trial court properly entered summary judgment in favor of SouthTrust on that count of Delta’s complaint directed against SouthTrust. At the time of entry of summary judgment, the trial court granted Delta leave to amend its complaint. Delta thereafter amended its complaint in an attempt to allege a new basis for a claim against SouthTrust. However, for all practical purposes, the amended complaint suffered from the same fatal deficiencies of the prior complaint. The day after the trial court properly dismissed this claim with prejudice,¹ SouthTrust served its motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to section 57.105.

If no further proceedings had been initiated by Delta at the trial level, the “safe harbor” provision set forth in section 57.105(4)² would have prevented an award of fees. O’Daniel v. Board of Commissioners of Monroe County, 916 So.2d 40 [1165]*1165(Fla. 3d DCA 2005). However, Delta continued to pursue its meritless claim by filing a motion for rehearing and propounding a discovery request upon South-Trust. After denying the motion for rehearing, the trial court acted within its discretion in awarding SouthTrust its reasonable attorney’s fees incurred subsequent to the date of service of its motion for attorney’s fees. The record supports the trial court’s conclusion that Delta was merely attempting to relitigate a claim that had already been rejected by the court in its order granting summary judgment.

AFFIRMED.

PLEUS, C.J. and THOMPSON, J., concur.

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

EVANDER, J.

We affirm the trial court’s decision awarding appellee, SouthTrust Bank, N.A., attorney’s fees pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2008). SouthTrust and others had been sued by appellant Delta Fire Sprinklers (“Delta”) in an effort to be paid for its work on a construction project.

The record reflects the trial court properly entered summary judgment in favor of SouthTrust on that count of Delta’s complaint directed against SouthTrust. At the time of entry of summary judgment, the trial court granted Delta leave to amend its complaint. Delta thereafter amended its complaint in an attempt to allege a new basis for a claim against SouthTrust. However, for all practical purposes, the amended complaint suffered from the same fatal deficiencies of the prior complaint. The day after the trial court properly dismissed this claim with prejudice,¹ SouthTrust served its motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to section 57.105.

If no further proceedings had been initiated by Delta at the trial level, the “safe harbor” provision set forth in section 57.105(4)² would have prevented an award of fees. O’Daniel v. Board of Commissioners of Monroe County, 916 So.2d 40 [1165]*1165(Fla. 3d DCA 2005). However, Delta continued to pursue its meritless claim by filing a motion for rehearing and propounding a discovery request upon South-Trust. After denying the motion for rehearing, the trial court acted within its discretion in awarding SouthTrust its reasonable attorney’s fees incurred subsequent to the date of service of its motion for attorney’s fees. The record supports the trial court’s conclusion that Delta was merely attempting to relitigate a claim that had already been rejected by the court in its order granting summary judgment.

AFFIRMED.

PLEUS, C.J. and THOMPSON, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

940 So. 2d 1164, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 14941, 2006 WL 2570590, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/delta-fire-sprinklers-inc-v-southtrust-bank-na-fladistctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack