determines claim in Florida

2005As the district court noted in this case, 788 So.2d at 1061 , the statute no longer applies only to an entire action; it now applies to any claim or defense.

2002As explained by this Court in Forum v. Boca Burger, Inc., 788 So.2d 1055, 1060 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), review granted, 817 So.2d 844 (Fla.2002), the 1999 revision changed the standards governing fee awards under section 57.105.

2025P. 1.220(d)(1) ("Irrespective of whether the court determines that the claim or defense is maintainable on behalf of a class, the order [so determining] shall separately state the findings of fact and conclusions of law upon which the determination is based."); see also Cabrera, 281 So. 3d at 521 (observing that "[rule 1.220] requires a trial court to make findings of fact and conclusions of law supporting its ruling to either certify a class or deny certification" and 1 Although we have jurisdiction over this appeal to the extent that the trial court's order effectively denied class certifica

2025App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(vi) (permitting appeal of orders determining "whether to certify a class"), we lack jurisdiction at this stage to determine whether that count states a cause of action, and our opinion should not be construed as taking a position on that issue, see Samples v. Hernando Taxpayers Ass'n, 682 So. 2d 184, 185 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (holding that "the issue of whether the trial court erred in failing to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action is not properly before this court" and limiting review instead to class certification). 2 reversing because "[t]he tri

2023See Volusia Cnty. v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126, 130 (Fla. 2000). - 10 - The challenged statutory provisions, sections 790.33(3)(c)-(d), applicable to local officials, provide as follows: (c) If the court determines that a violation was knowing and willful, the court shall assess a civil fine of up to $5,000 against the elected or appointed local government official or officials or administrative agency head under whose jurisdiction the violation occurred. (d) Except as required by applicable law, public funds may not be used to defend or reimburse the unlawful conduct of a

2022“A finding under section 57.105(1)(a) or (1)(b) is tantamount to a conclusion that the claim was frivolous when filed, or later became frivolous.” In re A.T.H., 180 So. 3d 1212, 1215 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

2019"A decision on class certification should be made promptly, but only after the parties have had an adequate opportunity to discover facts necessary to support all of the requirements of a class action." Whigum v. Heilig-Meyers Furniture Inc., 682 So. 2d 643, 645 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).

2017A trial court’s findings on imposing attorney’s fees as a sanction under section 57.105(1) must “be based upon substantial competent evidence presented to the court at the hearing on attorney’s fees or otherwise before the court and in the trial record.” Blue Infiniti, LLC v. Wilson, 170 So.3d 136, 140 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (quoting Montgomery v. Larmoyeux, 14 So.3d 1067, 1073 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)).

2017A trial court’s findings on imposing attorney’s fees as a sanction under section 57.105(1) must “be based upon substantial competent evidence presented to the court at the hearing on attorney’s fees or otherwise before the court and in the trial record.” Blue Infiniti, LLC v. Wilson, 170 So.3d 136, 140 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (quoting Montgomery v. Larmoyeux, 14 So.3d 1067, 1073 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)).

2008See Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754 (Fla.2007).

2002See generally Parisi v. Broward County, 769 So.2d 359 (Fla.2000); see also Levin, Middlebrooks, 639 So.2d at 609 ("[A] trial court would have the ability to use its contempt powers to vindicate its authority and protect its integrity by imposing a compensatory fine as punishment for contempt."); § 38.23, Fla. Stat. (1997) (providing for exercise of contempt power where a party has failed to abide by "any legal order, mandate or decree, made or given by any judge").

2002See Armstrong v. State, 806 So.2d 547 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).

2002See generally Parisi v. Broward County, 769 So.2d 359 (Fla.2000); see also Levin, Middlebrooks, 639 So.2d at 609 ("[A] trial court would have the ability to use its contempt powers to vindicate its authority and protect its integrity by imposing a compensatory fine as punishment for contempt."); § 38.23, Fla. Stat. (1997) (providing for exercise of contempt power where a party has failed to abide by "any legal order, mandate or decree, made or given by any judge").