Nordt v. Nordt

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Nordt v. Nordt

159 So. 3d 133, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 16835, 2014 WL 5151622

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 15, 2014·No. 13-2845 & 13-2415·Published

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

John C. Nordt appeals a non-final order compelling arbitration. We affirm the trial court’s order and write only to address the imposition of section 57.105.(1), Florida Statutes (2010) ¹, fees against John C. Nordt and his counsel, Bruce B. Baldwin, Esq.

Upon this Court’s initiative, we ordered John C. Nordt and his counsel to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed and fees awarded to the appellee, Karen A. Nordt, pursuant to section 57.105(1). Nordt responded, and this Court has considered the response.

We conclude that sanctions should be imposed on Nordt and his counsel pursuant to section 57.105(1), because his appeal of the order presented no justiciable question and was on its face devoid of merit. See Florida Houndsmen Ass’n, Inc. v. State, Fish and Wildlife Conservation Comm’n, 134 So.3d 999 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Waddington v. Baptist Med. Ctr. of Beaches, Inc., 78 So.3d 114 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Visoly v. Security Pac. Credit Corp., 768 So.2d 482 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000).

Accordingly, Karen A. Nordt’s appellate attorney’s fees shall be paid, in equal shares, by John C. Nordt and his counsel, Bruce B. Baldwin, Esq. On remand, the trial court shall determine the amount of the fee.

Affirmed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

John C. Nordt appeals a non-final order compelling arbitration. We affirm the trial court’s order and write only to address the imposition of section 57.105.(1), Florida Statutes (2010) ¹, fees against John C. Nordt and his counsel, Bruce B. Baldwin, Esq.

Upon this Court’s initiative, we ordered John C. Nordt and his counsel to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed and fees awarded to the appellee, Karen A. Nordt, pursuant to section 57.105(1). Nordt responded, and this Court has considered the response.

We conclude that sanctions should be imposed on Nordt and his counsel pursuant to section 57.105(1), because his appeal of the order presented no justiciable question and was on its face devoid of merit. See Florida Houndsmen Ass’n, Inc. v. State, Fish and Wildlife Conservation Comm’n, 134 So.3d 999 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Waddington v. Baptist Med. Ctr. of Beaches, Inc., 78 So.3d 114 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Visoly v. Security Pac. Credit Corp., 768 So.2d 482 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000).

Accordingly, Karen A. Nordt’s appellate attorney’s fees shall be paid, in equal shares, by John C. Nordt and his counsel, Bruce B. Baldwin, Esq. On remand, the trial court shall determine the amount of the fee.

Affirmed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Nordt v. Nordt, 159 So. 3d 133, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 16835, 2014 WL 5151622 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

159 So. 3d 133 (Nordt v. Nordt) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinions

Related