Steinhardt v. EASTERN SHORES WHITE HOUSE ASSOC., INC.
1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19739, 413 So. 2d 785 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Florida Statute § 57.105, an award of attorney's fees is only permissible after a final disposition of the case on its merits and requires a judicial finding that the losing party's position had a complete absence of any justiciable issue of law or fact.
Facts:
- Milton F. Steinhardt and Gladys Goldman were engaged in litigation with Eastern Shores White House Association, Inc.
- After extensive preparation for trial, the parties reached a tentative settlement agreement during a conference held in court.
- Pursuant to the agreement, counsel for Eastern Shores White House Association prepared voluminous settlement documents.
- Steinhardt and Goldman subsequently refused to sign the documents and complete the settlement agreement.
Procedural Posture:
- In the trial court, after Steinhardt and Goldman refused to execute settlement documents, the judge ordered them to pay attorney's fees and costs incurred by Eastern Shores White House Association in preparing the documents.
- The trial court did not enforce the settlement and rescheduled the case for trial.
- Steinhardt and Goldman, as appellants, appealed the trial court's order awarding attorney's fees to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
- Eastern Shores White House Association, Inc. is the appellee in the appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1979), permit a trial court to award attorney's fees to a party for costs incurred in preparing settlement documents when the opposing party refuses to complete the settlement, before a final disposition of the case on the merits?
Opinions:
Majority - Ferguson, J.
No. An award of attorney's fees under Section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1979), cannot be sustained before the case is concluded and merely because a party has frustrated a settlement agreement. The court reasoned that the statute, which must be strictly construed as it is in derogation of common law, requires a "prevailing party" and a "losing party." Such a determination can only be made after a final disposition of the case, such as by a judgment or final order. Furthermore, the statute requires a finding of a "complete absence of a justiciable issue of either law or fact," which necessitates a review of the merits of the underlying controversy, something that has not yet occurred. The purpose of the statute is to penalize baseless claims and defenses, not to sanction parties for conduct during settlement negotiations.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope and timing of attorney's fee awards under Florida Statute § 57.105, establishing that it is an end-of-litigation remedy, not a tool for sanctioning interim misconduct. It reinforces the high threshold for fee-shifting, requiring not only a final judgment but also a substantive finding that the losing party's entire case was frivolous. This prevents the statute from being used to penalize parties for frustrating settlement, thereby preserving its intended purpose of deterring baseless litigation from the outset. Future courts must wait for a final disposition on the merits before considering a fee award under this statute.
Unlock the full brief for Steinhardt v. EASTERN SHORES WHITE HOUSE ASSOC., INC.