Ferrara v. Community Developers, Ltd.
| Decision Date | 12 January 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 3D05-1977.,3D05-1977. |
| Citation | 917 So.2d 907 |
| Parties | Joseph A. FERRARA, Petitioner, v. COMMUNITY DEVELOPERS, LTD., Rental Service Company, and Lamonica V. Gray, Respondents. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Arthur J. Morburger, for petitioner.
Paul J. McMahon and Elizabeth W. Joyce, for respondents Community Developers, Ltd. and Rental Service Company.
Lamonica V. Gray, in proper person.
Before GREEN, CORTIÑAS, and ROTHENBERG, JJ.
Joseph Ferrara (Ferrara) has filed a petition for writ of certiorari seeking to quash a per curiam affirmance by the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida, acting in its appellate capacity, which affirmed a county court's entry of attorney's fees pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2004).
Ferrara is an attorney who represented a defendant against a suit seeking damages for her wrongful cashing of a check. The trial court required both Ferrara and his client to pay fifty percent of the attorney's fees incurred by the plaintiff, Community Developers, based upon its finding that Ferrara, after learning that the defendant's version of the facts was false, allowed the defendant to testify falsely, and argued the false version of the facts to the court.
The scope of our review on second-tier certiorari is limited to whether the circuit court afforded procedural due process and applied the correct law, or in other words, whether the lower court departed from the essential requirements of the law. Miami-Dade County v. Omnipoint Holdings, Inc., 863 So.2d 195, 199 (Fla.2003); Clear Channel Communications, Inc. v. City of North Bay Village, 911 So.2d 188 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005).
Ferrara argues that the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of the law by affirming the imposition of section 57.105 attorney's fees as they were entered in violation of section 57.105(4), the "safe harbor" provision of the statute. This provision requires that a party moving for attorney's fees under section 57.105 must serve the nonmoving party with the motion twenty-one days before filing the motion with the court. However, Ferrara failed to make this argument in the trial court. In fact, Ferrara failed to respond to the motion for section 57.105 fees, and failed to attend the hearing on attorney's fees.
Ferrara's failure to argue to the trial court that Community Developers did not comply with 57.105(4), and his failure to respond to the motion for attorney's fees, precluded the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court, sitting in its appellate capacity, from considering his argument on appeal. See Department of Revenue v. Yambert, 883 So.2d 881, 884 n. 3 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)( that the argument that the moving party failed to comply with the safe harbor provision of section 57.105 was waived for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Atlantic Shores Resort v. 507 S. St. Corp.
...199 (Fla.2003); Peachtree Cas. Ins. Co. v. Prof'l Massage Servs., Inc., 923 So.2d 548, 550 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); Ferrara v. Cmty. Dev., Ltd., 917 So.2d 907, 908 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). The Developer claims the Circuit Court departed from the essential requirements of the law by considering issue......
-
Granada Ins. Co. v. Cereceda, D.C., P.A.
...by the legal `hardship' required by the governing City of Miami ordinance to justify that relief'"); Ferrara v. Cmty. Developers, Ltd., 917 So.2d 907 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) circuit court appellate division's per curiam affirmance of county court's decision to award attorney fees to Community De......
-
Coral Imaging Services v. Geico Indem. Ins.
...627.736(5)(b), Florida Statutes (1999). As the decision departs from the essential requirements of law, Ferrara v. Cmty. Developers, Ltd., 917 So.2d 907 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So.2d 523 (Fla.1995), we grant certiorari and quash the decision below. We remand......