Cooke v. Custom Crete of Southwest Florida, Inc.
Docket: No. 2D02-1393
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; January 2, 2003; Florida; State Appellate Court
William Hartwell Cooke appeals the final judgment that awarded attorney’s fees and costs to Custom Crete of Southwest Florida, Inc. under section 57.105(1) of the Florida Statutes. The case originated from Cooke's injury in September 1997, when he fell on exposed iron reinforcement bars at a construction site. After hiring an attorney, Cooke's legal representative consulted with the general contractor, who identified four subcontractors as potentially responsible for the injury but could not provide specific details due to the loss of records. A negligence lawsuit was filed against the subcontractors in October 1999, but it was dismissed without prejudice after Cooke's attorney withdrew due to a conflict of interest. Custom Crete informed Cooke's initial counsel that it had no involvement in the incident, as it had not worked on the site until three months after the injury. After hiring new counsel, Cooke refiled the negligence action against all four subcontractors in May 2001, with Custom Crete again asserting it was not at fault. Cooke's new attorney sought sworn testimony from Custom Crete before dismissing them, leading to a counterclaim from Custom Crete for attorney’s fees under section 57.105. Following depositions and Cooke's voluntary dismissal of Custom Crete, the company moved for attorney’s fees. The trial court awarded Custom Crete fees, reasoning that Cooke's attorney should not have incurred costs against a party not involved in the incident. However, the court did not provide findings for the fee award or detail the hours and rates used for calculation. The appellate court reversed the judgment, highlighting that the trial court neither found that Cooke or his attorney knew their claim lacked merit nor presented substantial evidence to justify the fee award. Additionally, the court noted the absence of any supporting affidavit or invoice from Custom Crete in the record and criticized the trial court's failure to document the basis for the fee calculation. The judges concurred with the decision to reverse the final judgment due to these errors.