Legal Opinion
Wells v. Halmac Development, Inc.
District Court of Appeal of Florida
Decided April 13, 2016No. 3D15-1081PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtEmas, J.
INTRODUCTION
Diane N. Wells and Thomas 0. Wells (collectively “Wells”) appeal the trial court’s order denying their motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2012). We hold that the trial court erred in its legal determination that Castro presented a “colorable claim” under Florida law and therefore, in denying Wells’ motion for fees. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to enter an order granting entitlement and for a determination of the amount of fees which should be awarded to Wells.
BACKGROUND
In 2008, Wells contracted with Halmac…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Moritz v. Hoyt Enterprises, Inc.Supreme Court of Florida · 1992
- Prosperi v. Code, Inc.Supreme Court of Florida · 1993
- Trytek v. Gale Industries, Inc.Supreme Court of Florida · 2009
- Cassara v. WoffordSupreme Court of Florida · 1951
- Albritton v. FerreraDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2005
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Paul v. AvrahamiDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2017
- HARVEY LEE DAVIS and ERIC MCCABE v. KENNETH I. BAILYNSONDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2019
- Newman v. GuerraDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2017
- Sea Vault Partners v. Bermello, Ajamil & PartnersDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2019
- Creative Hardscapes, LLC v. Robert PrawdzikDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2024
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.