{"id":8739,"date":"2026-11-08T06:37:51","date_gmt":"2026-11-08T06:37:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.lawayala.com\/resources\/business-litigation\/sanctions-frivolous-business-lawsuit-florida\/"},"modified":"2026-11-09T07:41:55","modified_gmt":"2026-11-09T07:41:55","slug":"sanctions-frivolous-business-lawsuit-florida","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.lawayala.com\/resources\/business-litigation\/sanctions-frivolous-business-lawsuit-florida\/","title":{"rendered":"Frivolous Lawsuit Sanctions Florida Business | 57.105"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
<\/span>\"A
\n

Business Litigation | Tampa Bay and Hillsborough County<\/p>

Facing a Frivolous Lawsuit? Understand Florida's Section 57.105 Sanctions<\/h1>

Ayala Law PA focuses on commercial, contract, shareholder, construction and real estate disputes for businesses in Tampa, Brandon, Riverview, Plant City and Temple Terrace. Learn how Florida courts address claims and defenses that lack support, then contact us to discuss your situation.<\/p>

Book a Case Evaluation<\/a><\/div>
Book a Case Evaluation<\/a><\/div><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n

By Eduardo A. Maura \u00b7 Published November 8, 2026<\/p>\n\n

\n\n\n

Frivolous lawsuit sanctions in Florida business disputes are court orders that make the losing side pay the other side’s attorney’s fees. Fla. Stat. \u00a7 57.105<\/a> provides that, upon the court’s initiative or the motion of any party, the court shall award a reasonable attorney’s fee, including prejudgment interest, to the prevailing party when the court finds that the losing party or the losing party’s attorney knew or should have known that a claim or defense was not supported by the material facts necessary to establish it, or would not be supported by the application of then-existing law to those material facts. It can apply when a claim or defense lacks support in the facts or the law. So can a defendant who raises a position with no support.<\/p>\n

Florida Law on Fees for Unsupported Claims<\/h2>\n

Section 57.105 lets a Florida court order the losing side to pay the other side’s reasonable attorney’s fees, plus prejudgment interest, when the losing party or its attorney knew or should have known that a claim or defense was not supported by the material facts or would not be supported by then-existing law.<\/p>\n

The court shall award the fee to the prevailing party. The losing party and the losing party’s attorney pay it in equal amounts. The rule covers any claim or defense, at any time during a civil case, including before trial. That timing matters. A claim can be tested long after the first complaint was filed.<\/p>\n

Business disputes fall inside this reach. Contract claims, shareholder fights, construction payment disputes, and real estate suits are all civil proceedings. The statute can also reach a company that raises a defense with no factual basis, not only the company that starts the case.<\/p>\n

The statute covers unreasonable delay too. A party that proves by a preponderance of the evidence that an action was taken primarily for the purpose of unreasonable delay may have the court award damages for its reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining the order, which may include attorney’s fees, and other loss resulting from the improper delay. That path has its own proof standard and is separate from the unsupported-claim test.<\/p>\n\n

\n

If a claim against your company looks thin on paper, the 21-day clock may already be running, and our team can talk through the facts with you. Talk it through with our team — we can walk you through how a situation like yours is usually handled and what your options are.<\/p>

Schedule a consultation<\/a><\/div>
Schedule a consultation<\/a><\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n
\"Vintage<\/figure>\n

Are Frivolous Lawsuits Illegal?<\/h2>\n

The consequence under \u00a7 57.105<\/a> is a civil fee award made inside the same lawsuit, and for unreasonable delay the court shall award damages to the moving party for its reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining the order.<\/p>\n

That difference matters. A 57.105 award is a money order between the parties in a civil case, and in administrative proceedings under chapter 120 an administrative law judge shall award it. The judge decides it on a motion.<\/p>\n

Did the party or lawyer know, or should they have known, that the claim or defense lacked support?<\/p>\n

A common mistake is treating a loss as proof of bad faith. Another is treating a demand letter as a fix.<\/p>\n

The Standard for Determining Frivolousness<\/h2>\n

Under \u00a7 57.105(1)<\/a>, a court shall award a reasonable attorney’s fee when it finds that the losing party or the losing party’s attorney knew or should have known that a claim or defense, when initially presented to the court or at any time before trial, was not supported by the material facts necessary to establish it or would not be supported by the application of then-existing law to those material facts. The first is that the material facts did not support the claim. The second is that then-existing law, applied to those facts, would not support it.<\/p>\n

The statute looks at the claim when it was first presented, and again at any time before trial. A claim’s support is judged by what the filer knew or should have known when it was first presented and again at any time before trial, both as to whether it was supported by the material facts and whether it would be supported by then-existing law applied to those material facts.<\/p>\n

Good faith helps in the specific settings the statute names. Under \u00a7 57.105(3)(a), monetary sanctions<\/a> may not be awarded under paragraph (1)(b) if the court determines that the claim or defense was initially presented to the court as a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law, as it applied to the material facts, with a reasonable expectation of success. The argument must carry a reasonable expectation of success.<\/p>\n

The 21-Day Safe-Harbor Letter<\/h2>\n

A sanctions motion must be served first, and then it must wait 21 days before anyone files it. Under \u00a7 57.105(4)<\/a>, the motion may not be filed unless, within 21 days after service, the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, allegation, or denial is not withdrawn or appropriately corrected.<\/p>\n

Here is the sequence in plain steps. The other side serves the motion. The 21-day clock starts. You withdraw or correct the challenged item within that window. If you do not, the moving party can file the motion with the court.<\/p>\n

The window is short and easy to miss. A letter can sit on a desk while people assume it is a settlement opener. Calendar the deadline the day the motion is served. Treat it as a court deadline, not a letter to answer later.<\/p>\n

Who Can Be Sanctioned: Parties and Lawyers<\/h2>\n

Both the losing party and the losing party’s attorney can owe the award, but the attorney is excused for claims under (1)(a) or (1)(b) if he or she acted in good faith, based on the client’s representations as to the material facts. Under \u00a7 57.105(1)<\/a>, they pay in equal amounts.<\/p>\n

The party’s own facts sit at the center. The test asks what the party knew or should have known about the material facts and about whether then-existing law, applied to those facts, would support the claim or defense. A business owner who supplies those facts to counsel is supplying the record the court will read.<\/p>\n

Under \u00a7 57.105(3)(b)<\/a>, monetary sanctions may not be awarded against the attorney on the facts or law prongs if the attorney acted in good faith based on the client’s representations about the material facts. That protection depends on what the client said.<\/p>\n

Contract fee clauses can cut both ways. Under \u00a7 57.105(7)<\/a>, if a contract lets a party recover fees for enforcing it, the court may allow reasonable fees to the other party when that party prevails. That applies whether the other party was plaintiff or defendant, for contracts entered into on or after October 1, 1988.<\/p>\n

What a 57.105 Award Can Include<\/h2>\n

An award can include reasonable attorney’s fees and prejudgment interest.<\/p>\n

The statute has clear limits. A contested fact is different from a claim with no factual foundation.<\/p>\n

The statute works alongside other remedies. Under \u00a7 57.105(6)<\/a>, it is supplemental to other sanctions or remedies available under law or court rules.<\/p>\n

Florida courts will not enforce a contract that violates a constitution or statute, as Taboada v. Duarte<\/a> explains. A claim resting on such a term can be tested under the no-existing-law prong, and the sanctions in this section are in addition to other sanctions or remedies available under law or under court rules. Outcomes depend on the facts of each case.<\/p>\n\n

\n

Not sure what your next step is?<\/h3>

Talk it through with our team — we can walk you through how a situation like yours is usually handled and what your options are.<\/p>

Schedule a consultation<\/a><\/div>
Schedule a consultation<\/a><\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Common Business Scenarios Courts Scrutinize<\/h2>\n

Claims draw scrutiny when the paperwork does not match what the complaint says.<\/p>\n

Contract claims.<\/strong> A breach claim filed without the signed agreement, payment records, or proof of performance is exposed. Emails, invoices, and written messages often show whether a claim has support.<\/p>\n

Unjust enrichment.<\/strong> Pincus v. American Traffic Solutions<\/a> describes the elements: a benefit conferred, the defendant’s appreciation of it, and acceptance and retention under circumstances that make keeping it without payment inequitable. A claim missing those facts can be tested.<\/p>\n

Broken promises.<\/strong> Frutafino v. Dole Chile<\/a> notes that, if the plaintiff can demonstrate that the person promising future action does so with no intention of performing or with a positive intention not to perform, such a promise may also constitute a fraudulent misrepresentation. Under Frutafino v. Dole Chile<\/a>, a broken-promise claim may also constitute a fraudulent misrepresentation if the plaintiff can demonstrate that the person promising future action does so with no intention of performing or with a positive intention not to perform.<\/p>\n

Shareholder and partnership claims.<\/strong> A claim that does not point to the governing-document provision or the alleged breach of duty is easy to challenge.<\/p>\n

Construction and real estate filings.<\/strong> Lien, notice, and lis pendens filings are tested against the contract terms, notices, and records behind them.<\/p>\n

How to Respond to a Sanctions Threat or Weak Claim<\/h2>\n

When a safe-harbor letter arrives, preserve documents and calendar the 21-day window before anything else.<\/p>\n

Next, review the complaint or defense against the material facts and the governing law. Identify what can be withdrawn, corrected, or defended. Early review matters for both sides. A plaintiff with thin support may need to correct course. A defendant may face a fee motion it did not expect.<\/p>\n

The firm concentrates in business litigation<\/a>, commercial litigation, contract disputes, shareholder disputes, construction litigation, real estate litigation, and international trade litigation in Florida courts and arbitration.<\/p>\n

Eduardo A. Maura is the responsible lawyer for this page. The firm’s only office is in Tampa, at 1646 W Snow Ave. This page is written for businesses in Tampa and Hillsborough County.<\/p>\n

Common Questions<\/h3>
Can a frivolous filing lead to fee sanctions in Florida?<\/summary>

Under \u00a7 57.105(1)<\/a>, a fee award for an unsupported claim or defense requires a finding by the court that the losing party or the losing party’s attorney knew or should have known that the claim or defense lacked the material facts needed to establish it, or would not be supported by applying then-existing law to those facts, and the issue can be raised within the existing case by a party’s motion or on the court’s own initiative.<\/p><\/details>

How many days do I have to respond to a sanctions motion?<\/summary>

The motion cannot be filed until 21 days after service. The challenged item can be withdrawn or corrected within that window.<\/p><\/details>

Does 57.105 cover defenses too?<\/summary>

Yes. The statute applies to any claim or defense.<\/p><\/details>\n

\"A<\/figure>\n

Talk Through Your Dispute With the Firm<\/h2>\n

If a vendor, partner, or contractor has sued your company on a claim you believe lacks a factual basis, it is worth discussing with counsel whether a motion under \u00a7 57.105<\/a> is appropriate, since the statute sets its own timing rules. Call (305) 570-2208 or send a case evaluation request<\/a> to talk through the facts and timing with our team.<\/p>\n\n<\/article>\n