Beem v. Ferguson

• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM.
• Citation: Beem v. Ferguson, 304 So.3d 1259 (Fla. App. 2020)
• Decision Date: 04 March 2020
• Docket Number: No. 3D18-1725,3D18-1725
• Parties: David BEEM, et al., Appellants, v. Kim FERGUSON, et al., Appellees.

304 So.3d 1259

David BEEM, et al., Appellants,

v.Kim FERGUSON, et al., Appellees.

No. 3D18-1725

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed March 4, 2020.

Jeffrey Norkin and David Beem, in proper persons.

GPG Law, and Christopher J. Perez-Gurri (Fort Lauderdale) and Alan G. Geffin, Miami, (Fort Lauderdale), for appellees.

Before EMAS, C.J., and FERNANDEZ and LINDSEY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal arises from litigation initiated in 2008 between former business partners, Gary Ferguson and David Beem. Ferguson sought relief from Beem for, inter alia , breach of contract and several other claims related to Beem's alleged embezzlement of company funds.

Beem counterclaimed against Ferguson, and also asserted third-party claims against Ferguson's wife, Kim Ferguson ("Mrs. Ferguson"), based on an alleged conspiracy with her husband to harass and defame Beem.

Beem was ultimately successful on some of the claims between himself and Mr. Ferguson; however, he was unsuccessful on all of his claims against Mrs. Ferguson. Accordingly, Mrs. Ferguson sought attorney's fees pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2011) ; section 607.07401, Florida Statutes (2011) ; and the court's inherent authority to sanction Beem, and his attorney, Jeffrey Norkin, for engaging in bad faith conduct.¹

After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court granted Mrs. Ferguson's motions for attorney's fees and costs, finding there was no evidence or factual support for the claims against her, that Norkin and Beem engaged in vexatious litigation strategies, and that Mrs. Ferguson was entitled to fees and costs pursuant to sections 57.105, 607.07401, and the court's inherent authority. Following this entitlement order, Norkin sought to individually intervene in the action, under an assignment of rights by Beem, but this motion was denied by the court. Thereafter, the trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing on the reasonableness of Mrs. Ferguson's attorney's fees and costs, found her fees and costs were reasonable, and ultimately entered final judgment in her favor and against both Beem and Norkin.

In this appeal, Beem and Norkin seek review of nineteen trial court orders entered below, many related to Mrs. Ferguson's attorney's fees and costs, in addition to several other orders involving discovery issues and Beem's attempts to recover on his judgment and for attorney's fees against Mr. Ferguson.

After careful review, we affirm all nineteen orders, save for a partial reversal of two orders entered on July 1, 2019: (1) the order denying Beem's motion to amend the final judgment as to prejudgment interest on costs; and (2) the final judgment on costs. On appeal, the Fergusons concede that the trial court erred in calculating prejudgment interest on the award of costs to Beem (for his successful claims against Mr. Ferguson) from February 25, 2019 (the date of the amended final judgment). We agree. Florida has adopted the "loss theory" of prejudgment interest. See Boulis...