Florida Statute 57.112 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research

The 2024 Florida Statutes

Title VI
CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

Chapter 57
COURT COSTS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 57.112

57.112 Attorney fees and costs and damages; arbitrary, unreasonable, or expressly preempted local ordinances.—

(1) As used in this section, the term “attorney fees and costs” means the reasonable and necessary attorney fees and costs incurred for all preparations, motions, hearings, trials, and appeals in a proceeding.

(2) If a civil action is filed against a local government to challenge the adoption or enforcement of a local ordinance on the grounds that it is expressly preempted by the State Constitution or by state law, the court shall assess and award reasonable attorney fees and costs and damages to the prevailing party.

(3) If a civil action is filed against a local government to challenge the adoption of a local ordinance on the grounds that the ordinance is arbitrary or unreasonable, the court may assess and award reasonable attorney fees and costs and damages to a prevailing plaintiff. An award of reasonable attorney fees or costs and damages pursuant to this subsection may not exceed $50,000. In addition, a prevailing plaintiff may not recover any attorney fees or costs directly incurred by or associated with litigation to determine an award of reasonable attorney fees or costs.

(4) Attorney fees and costs and damages may not be awarded pursuant to this section if:

(a) The governing body of a local governmental entity receives written notice that an ordinance that has been publicly noticed or adopted is expressly preempted by the State Constitution or state law or is arbitrary or unreasonable; and

(b) The governing body of the local governmental entity withdraws the proposed ordinance within 30 days; or, in the case of an adopted ordinance, the governing body of a local government notices an intent to repeal the ordinance within 30 days after receipt of the notice and repeals the ordinance within 30 days thereafter.

(5) The provisions in this section are supplemental to all other sanctions or remedies available under law or court rule. However, this section may not be construed to authorize double recovery if an affected person prevails on a claim brought against a local government pursuant to other applicable law involving the same ordinance, operative acts, or transactions.

(6) This section does not apply to local ordinances adopted pursuant to part II of chapter 163, s. 553.73, or s. 633.202.

(7)(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), this section is intended to be prospective in nature and applies only to cases commenced on or after July 1, 2019.

(b) The amendments to this section effective October 1, 2023, are prospective in nature and apply only to ordinances adopted on or after October 1, 2023.

(c) An amendment to an ordinance enacted after October 1, 2023, gives rise to a claim under this section only to the extent that the application of the amendatory language is the cause of the claim apart from the ordinance being amended.

History.—s. 1, ch. 2019-151; s. 1, ch. 2023-309.

F.S. 57.112 on Google Scholar

F.S. 57.112 on Casetext

Amendments to 57.112

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 57.112

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 57.112.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 57.112

Total Results: 6

Khalid Ali Pasha v. State of Florida

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2017-05-11

Citation: 225 So. 3d 688, 42 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 569, 2017 WL 1954975, 2017 Fla. LEXIS 1067

Snippet: ” Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647, 656-57, 112 S.Ct. 2686, 120 L.Ed.2d 520 (1992). We find

LaVALLEY v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2010-03-26

Citation: 30 So. 3d 513, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 3910, 2009 WL 4874760

Snippet: peremptory challenges. Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U.S. 42, 57,112 S.Ct. 2348, 120 L.Ed.2d 33 (1992). Thus, this case

Busby v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2005-02-03

Citation: 894 So. 2d 88, 2004 WL 2471387

Snippet: fair trial." Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U.S. 42, 57, 112 S.Ct. 2348, 120 L.Ed.2d 33 (1992). In fact, that

Baber v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2000-08-31

Citation: 775 So. 2d 258, 2000 WL 1227764

Snippet: (1970)); see White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 356-57, 112 S.Ct. 736, 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992); Bourjaily v

Perez v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1996-05-15

Citation: 673 So. 2d 160, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 4773, 1996 WL 252234

Snippet: (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 816, 111 S.Ct. 57, 112 L.Ed.2d 32 (1990); Commonwealth v. Lowery, 276

Roberts v. Campbell

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1957-09-24

Citation: 97 So. 2d 160

Snippet: PER CURIAM. . Affirmed. ■ CARROLL, CHAS., C. J., PEARSON, J., and LOPEZ, Associate Judge, concur.