Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Mark W. Rickard, P.A., etc., Appellant, v. Ferrari Financial Services, Inc., et al., Appellees.
Appellant Mark W. Rickard, P.A. appeals the trial court's February 27, 2025 order denying its motion, filed pursuant to section 57.105 of the Florida Statutes, seeking attorney's fees as a sanction against opposing counsel, appellee Saul Ewing LLP.1 Appellant argues that section 57.105 sanctions are appropriate in this case because Saul Ewing LLP knew or should have known that its client Ferrari's claim to surplus proceeds from a foreclosure sale lacked merit. By granting Ferrari's motion to intervene in the underlying foreclosure action for the limited purpose of pursuing surplus funds, however, the trial court implicitly found some potential merit to Ferrari's claim. Thus, it would have been incongruous for the trial court both to have granted Ferrari's intervention motion and to have found that Ferrari did not have a good faith basis for its claim. See MC Liberty Express, Inc. v. All Points Servs., Inc., 252 So. 3d 397, 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (“Where a party reasonably believes the factual basis for its claim exists, it is entitled to proceed with its claims and seek to prove those facts. If attempts to prove those facts are fruitless, that is still not cause for sanctions where the party's initial belief was well-founded.” (citation omitted)).
The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Appellant's section 57.105 motion. Id. at 402 (“[A] trial court's order awarding or denying attorney's fees under section 57.105 is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”).
Affirmed.
FOOTNOTES
1. Appellees in this case are Saul Ewing LLP and two of the firm's attorneys, as well as Saul Ewing LLP's client, Ferrari Financial Services, Inc. (“Ferrari”), although Appellant did not move for a section 57.105 sanction against Ferrari. Appellant also named as appellees parties from an underlying foreclosure case – Great Ocean Properties, LLC and Sergey Slastikhin – though they play no part in this appeal.
PER CURIAM.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: No. 3D25-0385
Decided: October 01, 2025
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)