From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bank of Am., N.A. v. Turkanovic

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Dec 1, 2016
204 So. 3d 595 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

Summary

holding trial court lacks jurisdiction to impose sanctions if the case is voluntarily dismissed within the safe harbor period in section 57.105, Florida Statutes, and before a motion for sanctions is filed

Summary of this case from Fla., Dep't of Fin. Servs. v. Choice Plus, LLC

Opinion

No. 1D16–3416.

12-01-2016

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Petitioner, v. Hamdija TURKANOVIC, Respondent.

Jason F. Joseph of Gladstone Law Group, P.A., Boca Raton, for Petitioner. James C. Cumbie of Cumbie Law Firm P.A., Jacksonville, for Respondent.


Jason F. Joseph of Gladstone Law Group, P.A., Boca Raton, for Petitioner.

James C. Cumbie of Cumbie Law Firm P.A., Jacksonville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner, Bank of America, N.A. (BOA), seeks a writ of prohibition to prevent the trial court from compelling the deposition of its corporate representative in furtherance of Respondent's motion seeking an award of attorney's fees as a sanction against BOA for filing this allegedly frivolous foreclosure case. We agree with BOA that the trial court lacks jurisdiction to impose the sanction sought by Respondent because BOA voluntarily dismissed this case within the safe harbor period in section 57.105(4), Florida Statutes, and before Respondent filed his motion for sanctions. See Pino v. Bank of New York, 121 So.3d 23, 42 (Fla.2013) ; Pomeranz & Landsman Corp. v. Miami Marlins Baseball Club, L.P., 143 So.3d 1182, 1183 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). Respondent cannot avoid this jurisdictional bar by filing the motion under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525 and basing the request for sanctions on "the inherent power of the Court" rather than section 57.105(1). See Hall v. Lopez, ––– So.3d –––– n. 1, 41 Fla. L. Weekly D1763, n. 1, 2016 WL 4036093 n. 1 (Fla. 1st DCA July 28, 2016) (noting that "a trial court has a limited inherent authority to assess attorney's fees against an attorney or party for bad faith conduct, but ‘if a specific statute or rule applies, the trial court should rely on the applicable rule or statute rather than on inherent authority.’ " (quoting Moakley v. Smallwood, 826 So.2d 221, 224–27 (Fla.2002) ).

Accordingly, BOA's petition for writ of prohibition is GRANTED.

B.L. THOMAS, WETHERELL, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Bank of Am., N.A. v. Turkanovic

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Dec 1, 2016
204 So. 3d 595 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

holding trial court lacks jurisdiction to impose sanctions if the case is voluntarily dismissed within the safe harbor period in section 57.105, Florida Statutes, and before a motion for sanctions is filed

Summary of this case from Fla., Dep't of Fin. Servs. v. Choice Plus, LLC

granting writ of prohibition and quashing trial court's order compelling deposition of bank's corporate representative "in furtherance of [r]espondent's motion seeking an award of attorney's fees as a sanction," where the bank voluntarily dismissed a foreclosure complaint within the safe harbor provision of section 57.105, Florida Statutes

Summary of this case from State v. Planned Parenthood Sw. & Cent. Fla., Inc.
Case details for

Bank of Am., N.A. v. Turkanovic

Case Details

Full title:BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Petitioner, v. Hamdija TURKANOVIC, Respondent.

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Date published: Dec 1, 2016

Citations

204 So. 3d 595 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

Citing Cases

State v. Planned Parenthood Sw. & Cent. Fla., Inc.

Accordingly, we hold that the order setting this matter for an evidentiary hearing would cause irreparable…

Fla., Dep't of Fin. Servs. v. Choice Plus, LLC

Michael J. Farrar of Michael J. Farrar, P.A., Aventura, for Appellee.Per Curiam. AFFIRMED . SeeState, Agency…