Case Name: APGAR & MARKHAM CONSTRUCTION OF FLORIDA, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. MACASPHALT, INC., and Gary's Glass and Mirror, Inc., Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1982-12-01
Citations: 424 So. 2d 41
Docket Number: Nos. 82-361, 82-362
Parties: APGAR & MARKHAM CONSTRUCTION OF FLORIDA, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. MACASPHALT, INC., and Gary’s Glass and Mirror, Inc., Appellees.
Judges: CAMPBELL, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 424
Pages: 41–43

Head Matter:
APGAR & MARKHAM CONSTRUCTION OF FLORIDA, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. MACASPHALT, INC., and Gary’s Glass and Mirror, Inc., Appellees.
Nos. 82-361, 82-362.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Dec. 1, 1982.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 4, 1983.
Karl L. Johnson of Nuckolls, Johnson & Fernandez, Fort Myers, James E. Glass and R. Hugh Lumpkin of Rosenberg, Reisman & Glass, Miami, for appellant.
Robert F. Henshaw, Jr., Law Offices of Robert F. Henshaw, Jr., Sarasota, for appel-lee Macasphalt, Inc.
John S. Vento of Trenam, Simmons, Kemker, Scharf, Barkin, Frye & O’Neill, P.A., Tampa, for appellee Gary’s Glass and Mirror, Inc.

Opinion:
GRIMES, Acting Chief Judge.
While we affirm the judgments in their entirety, there is a technical problem with respect to the award of attorney's fees pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1981). In entering the award, the court did not make a finding that there was a complete absence of a justiciable issue raised by the losing party. Were we at liberty to reach our own conclusion, we would find the order entered in this case sufficient because it recites the award as being made pursuant to the statute. However, in the recent case of Whitten v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co., 410 So.2d 501 (Fla.1982), in referring to section 57.105 the supreme court said:
The statute provides that a party is entitled to an award of attorney's fees only when the court determines that there was a complete absence of a justiciable issue raised by the losing party. Without such a finding, an order assessing attorney's fees is technically deficient and must be reversed. Allen v. Estate of Dutton, 394 So.2d 132, 135 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); City of Miami Beach v. Town of Bay Harbor Islands, 380 So.2d 1112, 1113 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); but see Autorico, Inc. v. Government Employees Insurance Co., 398 So.2d 485, 488 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).
410 So.2d at 506.
Admittedly, the foregoing quotation was dictum because the court held in Whitten, as the substantive basis for reversal, that the losing party's claims were not frivolous or devoid of arguable substance. Nevertheless, the court's use of the word "technically" and its reference to the Autorico case makes it clear that an explicit finding must be made before an order awarding attorney's fees under the statute will be upheld. In Autorico, Judge Hubbart, writing for the Third District Court of Appeal, had distinguished his prior opinion in City of Miami Beach v. Town of Bay Harbor Islands by holding that the finding of a complete absence of a justiciable issue of either law or fact is implicit in an order which grants a motion for attorney's fees based entirely upon section 57.105. According to the "blue book," A Uniform System of Citation (13th ed. 1981), the signal "But see" denotes that the "cited authority directly contradicts the proposition." Obviously, the supreme court in Whitten has rejected Autorico as an acceptable refinement of the stated proposition that an explicit finding is required.
Accordingly, we reverse the award of attorney's fees and remand to the trial court with directions to make an appropriate finding based on the record as to whether there was any justiciable issue of either law or fact stated by appellant in this case. Should the court expressly find that no such issue existed, it may reassess the same attorney's fees without the need of taking further evidence. In all other respects, the judgments are affirmed.
CAMPBELL, J., concurs.
SCHOONOVER, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, with opinion.