Citizens Property Insurance Corporation v. Quality Mold Finders Corp., Etc.
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledJuly 15, 2026
Docket3D2025-0697
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed July 15, 2026.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D25-0697
Lower Tribunal No. 22-33195-SP-26
________________
Citizens Property Insurance Corporation,
Appellant,
vs.
Quality Mold Finders Corp., etc.,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Lissette De
La Rosa, Judge.
Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP and Joye B. Walford and
David T. Burr and C. Ryan Jones (St. Petersburg), for appellant.
Legal Armor, The People's Law Firm, Inc., and Alian M. Perez, for
appellee.
Before FERNANDEZ, MILLER and LOBREE, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Citizens Property Insurance Corporation appeals a final judgment
awarding attorney’s fees and costs under section 57.105(1), Florida Statutes
(2025), to Quality Mold Finders Corporation in the stipulated amount of
$12,025.00. We are compelled to reverse, as the trial court failed to make
the specific findings necessary to support an award of attorney’s fees under
section 57.105(1). Particularly, the trial court failed to render findings that
Citizens’ affirmative defense “when initially presented to the court or at any
time before trial: (a) Was not supported by the material facts necessary to
establish the claim or defense; or (b) Would not be supported by the
application of then-existing law to those material facts.” § 57.105(1), Fla.
Stat. (2025). See Lanson v. Reid, 314 So. 3d 385, 387 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)
(“An award of fees under section 57.105 requires a determination by the
court that ‘the party or its counsel knew or should have known that the claim
or defense asserted was not supported by the facts or an application of
existing law.’ To award attorney’s fees under this statute, the court must
make specific findings of bad faith, and should recite the facts on which it
bases its conclusions in the order awarding such fees.” (footnote omitted)
(quoting Blue Infiniti, LLC v. Wilson, 170 So. 3d 136, 140 (Fla. 4th DCA
2015))).
Reversed and remanded.
2