SMITH v. GORE

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

No. 1D05-5306.

Attorney(S)

D. Michael Chesser, Shalimar, for appellants. Richard H. Powell, Ft. Walton Beach, for appellees.

Judges

PER CURIAM.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

Appellants Tarrell J. Smith and June E. Smith sought review of a trial court order granting specific performance of a residential sale and purchase contract in favor of Appellees Damon L. Gore and Kimberly M. Gore. After the lower court's final judgment, Appellants conveyed the residential property to Appellees on October 20, 2005, and the warranty deed was recorded on October 21, 2005. Despite closing the transaction and accepting payment, Appellants filed an appeal on November 2, 2005. Appellees moved to dismiss the appeal, and when Appellants responded by filing a voluntary dismissal, Appellees subsequently moved for attorney's fees under section 57.105 of the Florida Statutes (2005).

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the appeal filed by Appellants after closing the real estate transaction and accepting its benefits was baseless under section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2005).
Whether Appellees are entitled to attorney's fees pursuant to section 57.105 for the filing and prosecution of a baseless appeal.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Albritton v. Ferrera, 913 So.2d 5 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)	Interpretation and mandatory application of section 57.105 to impose attorney's fees for baseless claims or defenses.	The court relied on this precedent to emphasize the legislative intent that attorney's fees are mandatory when a party brings or fails to timely dismiss baseless claims, applying this to grant Appellees' motion for fees.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court reasoned that Appellants, having closed the real estate transaction by conveying the property and accepting payment, effectively recognized the validity of the lower court's final judgment. Filing an appeal after such actions demonstrated that the grounds for reversal lacked material factual support and were not supported by the applicable law. The court underscored that section 57.105 mandates awarding attorney's fees against parties who pursue baseless claims or defenses, serving as a deterrent against such conduct. Citing the Albritton decision, the court highlighted the mandatory nature of this statutory penalty. Accordingly, the court granted Appellees' motion for attorney's fees and remanded the case to the trial court to determine the amount.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The court granted Appellees' motion for attorney's fees under section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2005), and remanded for assessment of the fee amount.

Implications: This decision enforces the mandatory statutory penalty against parties who pursue baseless appeals after accepting the benefits of a judgment, reinforcing the deterrent purpose of section 57.105. The ruling directly affects the parties by requiring Appellants to pay reasonable attorney's fees to Appellees. The opinion does not establish new precedent beyond applying existing law to the facts of this case.

Show full summary ...

Tarrell J. SMITH and wife, June E. Smith, Appellants, v. Damon L. GORE and wife, Kimberly M. Gore, Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Appellants seek review of an order granting specific performance of a residential sale and purchase contract. Appellees moved to dismiss this appeal. In response to the motion to dismiss, Appellants filed a notice of voluntary dismissal. Appellees now move for attorney's fees pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2005). We grant the motion.

Following the lower court's final judgment granting specific performance, Appellants conveyed to Appellees the subject residential dwelling on October 20, 2005. The warranty deed was recorded on October 21, 2005. Appellants filed the instant appeal on November 2, 2005.

Significantly, Appellants filed their appeal after attending the closing of the real estate transaction and accepting the benefits of the transaction. By closing the real estate transaction, Appellants recognized the validity of the final judgment entered by the lower court, closed on the contract, deeded the property to Appellees, and accepted payment of the contract sale price. Thus, when Appellants filed the appeal, they knew or should have known the grounds argued for reversal were not supported by material facts necessary to establish relief, nor were they supported by the application of then-existing law to those material facts. See § 57.105(1)(a)(b), Fla. Stat. (2005); see also Albritton v. Ferrera, 913 So.2d 5 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).

We again remind the bar that section 57.105 expressly states courts "shall" assess attorney's fees for bringing, or failing to timely dismiss, baseless claims or defenses. See Albritton, 913 So.2d at 8-9 (noting the word "shall" in section 57.105 evidences "the legislative intent to impose a mandatory penalty in the form of reasonable attorney's fees to discourage baseless claims, by placing a price tag on losing parties who engage in these activities.") (emphasis in original).

Appellees' motion for attorney's fees is GRANTED, and the case REMANDED to the trial court to assess the amount.

VAN NORTWICK, HAWKES and THOMAS, JJ., concur.