Murphy v. Murphy

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Murphy v. Murphy

944 So. 2d 487, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 20561, 2006 WL 3524275

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 8, 2006

DocketNo. 2D06-194

StatusPublished

This text of 944 So. 2d 487 (Murphy v. Murphy) 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

Murphy v. Murphy, 944 So. 2d 487, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 20561, 2006 WL 3524275 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

KELLY, Judge.

Thomas and Marian Murphy appeal the final order awarding Jacqueline Murphy attorney’s fees pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2005). Section 57.105(1) provides for an award of attorney’s fees to the prevailing party in an action if the court finds that the losing party or the [488]*488losing party’s attorney knew or should have known that a claim when initially presented “[w]as not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the claim” or “[w]ould not be supported by the application of then-existing law to those material facts.” Although “[t]he post-1999 version of section 57.105 has greatly expanded the court’s power to award fees when a party asserts a claim without an adequate factual foundation[,] ... the new statute is still intended to address frivolous pleadings.” Peyton v. Homer, 920 So.2d 180, 183 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (citing Connelly v. Old Bridge Vill. Co-Op, Inc., 915 So.2d 652, 656 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)). Because the record in this case does not support a finding that the Murphys or their counsel knew or should have known that their claims against Michael and Jacqueline Murphy were not supported by the material facts or the application of then-existing law to those material facts, see section 57.105(l)(a), (b), we reverse the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees under section 57.105.

Reversed.

CASANUEVA and CANADY, JJ., Concur.

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

KELLY, Judge.

Thomas and Marian Murphy appeal the final order awarding Jacqueline Murphy attorney’s fees pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2005). Section 57.105(1) provides for an award of attorney’s fees to the prevailing party in an action if the court finds that the losing party or the [488]*488losing party’s attorney knew or should have known that a claim when initially presented “[w]as not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the claim” or “[w]ould not be supported by the application of then-existing law to those material facts.” Although “[t]he post-1999 version of section 57.105 has greatly expanded the court’s power to award fees when a party asserts a claim without an adequate factual foundation[,] ... the new statute is still intended to address frivolous pleadings.” Peyton v. Homer, 920 So.2d 180, 183 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (citing Connelly v. Old Bridge Vill. Co-Op, Inc., 915 So.2d 652, 656 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)). Because the record in this case does not support a finding that the Murphys or their counsel knew or should have known that their claims against Michael and Jacqueline Murphy were not supported by the material facts or the application of then-existing law to those material facts, see section 57.105(l)(a), (b), we reverse the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees under section 57.105.

Reversed.

CASANUEVA and CANADY, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

944 So. 2d 487, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 20561, 2006 WL 3524275, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murphy-v-murphy-fladistctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack