O'BRIEN v. Brickell Townhouse, Inc., 457 So. 2d 1123 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). · Go Syfert
O'BRIEN v. Brickell Townhouse, Inc., 457 So. 2d 1123 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
7 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Cited for
Other citing cases1 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
John J. O'BRIEN, Appellant,
v.
BRICKELL TOWNHOUSE, INC.; Jerry A. Gross; Howard P. Gross and Alan Telisman, Appellees.
83-3042.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Oct 16, 1984.
Published opinion
457 So. 2d 1123
Barkdull, Hubbart and Ferguson.
Cited by 6 opinions  |  Published

John J. O'Brien, Miami, in pro. per.

Podhurst, Orseck Parks, Josefsberg, Eaton, Meadow & Olin and Joel S. Perwin, Miami, for appellees.

Before BARKDULL, HUBBART and FERGUSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Following the rendition of our opinion, reported O'Brien v. Brickell Townhouse, 439 So.2d 982 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), the matter recurred in the trial court on a petition for attorney's fees filed by Brickell Townhouse pursuant to the provisions of Section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1983). The trial court granted the petition and entered an award of fees. This appeal ensued.

The appellant contends, first, that the trial court was required to take evidence to determine whether or not the appeal was frivolous, and second, that the record, in fact, demonstrated a justiciable issue of law. There is no requirement that a trial court must take evidence to determine whether a matter is frivolous, it may do it on the record alone. Strothman v. Henderson Medical Health Center, Inc., 425 So.2d 1185 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). And third, it is clear in the instant case by virtue of the prior affirmance that the appellant was attempting to relitigate in the state courts identical issues which had been resolved, adverse to him, in the federal courts and therefore he did not plead any[*1124] justiciable issue and the trial court was correct in the entry of the order here under review. See Debra, Inc. v. Orange County, 445 So.2d 404, 405 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Puder v. Raymond International Builders, Inc., 424 So.2d 78 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); P.J. Constructors, Inc. v. Carter Electric Company, 410 So.2d 536 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); New River Yachting Center v. Bacchiocchi, 407 So.2d 607 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).

The order under review is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.