South Wild Olive, LLC v. Total Maintenance Services, LLC
An unlicensed contractor sued for breach of contract and to foreclose a construction lien; the homeowner sought section 57.105 sanctions after showing counsel knew the contractor was unlicensed at contract formation. The trial court denied sanctions, reasoning the owner's knowledge of the lack of licensure gave the contractor a colorable basis. The Fifth DCA reversed, holding that under section 489.128 and Earth Trades the owner's knowledge is legally irrelevant, and later licensure is likewise irrelevant, so counsel knew or should have known the claim and defense were unsupported by then-existing law, making a fee award mandatory as to the law firm.
Key facts
- Unlicensed contractor sued homeowner for breach of contract and construction lien foreclosure; homeowner counterclaimed seeking section 57.105 sanctions, arguing contractor's counsel knew the contractor lacked required licensure at contract formation.
- Trial court denied sanctions, reasoning that the homeowner's knowledge of the contractor's unlicensed status gave the contractor a colorable basis for the claims.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This is a rare appellate reversal of a *denial* of section 57.105 sanctions, confirming that the statute's 'shall award' language leaves no discretion once the legal-support element is established. Litigators defending… — full analysis with a trial
Read the full opinion, holdings & search — free for 30 days
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision — in your hands.
- Search every tracked Florida decision in seconds
- Save, tag & file the cases that matter into your own library
- Read the full plain-English analysis and holdings
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.