Rodell v. Narson

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rodell v. Narson

706 So. 2d 392, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 1357, 1998 WL 65391

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 18, 1998

DocketNo. 97-578

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 706 So. 2d 392 (Rodell v. Narson) 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

Rodell v. Narson, 706 So. 2d 392, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 1357, 1998 WL 65391 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Susan Rodell appeals the lower court’s award of attorney’s fees to Corey and Todd Narson (“Narson”). For the following reasons, we reverse.

Attorney’s fees will not be awarded pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1995), “unless the court finds a total or absolute lack of a justiciable issue, which is tantamount to a finding that the action is frivolous ... and so clearly devoid of merit both on the facts and the law as to be completely untenable.” Muckenfuss v. Deltona Corp., 508 So.2d 340, 341 (Fla.1987).

Rodell’s case was not frivolous or clearly devoid of all merit both on the facts and the law. Narson hired Cimbler, an attorney that had been previously consulted about this property by Rodell. Despite the fact that Rodell contacted Cimbler regarding another issue pertaining to the property, Ro-dell disclosed confidential information regarding the property. In good faith, Rodell pursued this conflict of interest issue in a motion to disqualify Cimbler based upon Rule 4-1.9 of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar. This was a meritorious claim that was not subject to section 57.105 attorney’s fees. Hence, attorney’s fees were improperly awarded to Narson.

Reversed 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.

Susan Rodell appeals the lower court’s award of attorney’s fees to Corey and Todd Narson (“Narson”). For the following reasons, we reverse.

Attorney’s fees will not be awarded pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1995), “unless the court finds a total or absolute lack of a justiciable issue, which is tantamount to a finding that the action is frivolous ... and so clearly devoid of merit both on the facts and the law as to be completely untenable.” Muckenfuss v. Deltona Corp., 508 So.2d 340, 341 (Fla.1987).

Rodell’s case was not frivolous or clearly devoid of all merit both on the facts and the law. Narson hired Cimbler, an attorney that had been previously consulted about this property by Rodell. Despite the fact that Rodell contacted Cimbler regarding another issue pertaining to the property, Ro-dell disclosed confidential information regarding the property. In good faith, Rodell pursued this conflict of interest issue in a motion to disqualify Cimbler based upon Rule 4-1.9 of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar. This was a meritorious claim that was not subject to section 57.105 attorney’s fees. Hence, attorney’s fees were improperly awarded to Narson.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

706 So. 2d 392, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 1357, 1998 WL 65391, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodell-v-narson-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack