Weren't we just talking about 57.105 and pointless/wasteful/inappropriate sanctions motions?
Well a birdie in Tally must have heard our conversation, because in walks the Florida Supreme Court to big foot us on this very issue:
The conflict issue presented for our determination is whether the safe harbor provision of section 57.105(4), Florida Statutes, applies where a party‟s frivolous claims were originally filed before the provision became effective, but the initial motion seeking attorney‟s fees was filed in court after the provision became effective without the motion first having been served on the opposing party twenty-one days before filing.Oy veh.
Is this really a situation likely to ever be repeated again?
Anyways, who wins -- the First or Fifth DCA?
And the steel cage wrestling belt goes to......the First:
We conclude that the safe harbor provision does not apply to a case where claims found to be frivolous by a trial court were originally filed before the safe harbor provision took effect. We therefore quash the decision of the Fifth District in Kenniasty to the extent that it is inconsistent with this opinion, and approve the decision of the First District in Walker to the extent that it is consistent with our analysis and holding.
This makes sense, I think.