Court Opinion

ID: 9914860
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-03 16:03:14.997663+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:15:10.687580
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                              State of Florida

                        Opinion filed January 3, 2024.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                             No. 3D22-1759
                         Lower Tribunal No. 21-99
                           ________________

                         Dror Levy, etc., et al.,
                                 Appellants,

                                     vs.

                       Eliezer Tabib, etc., et al.,
                                 Appellees.

    An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Michael A.
Hanzman, Judge.

     Boyd Richards Parker Colonnelli, P.L., and Elaine D. Walter, Nathaniel
H. Sari and Marcus A. Nielsen, for appellant Dror Levy.

      Waserstein & Nunez, PLLC, Carlos Nunez-Vivas and John Marfoe,
for appellees.

Before MILLER, GORDO and BOKOR, JJ.

     PER CURIAM.
      Affirmed. See Sher v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 848 So. 2d

1246, 1249 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (“The trial court’s ruling concerning an

award of fees under [section 772.11, Florida Statutes] is subject to an abuse

of discretion standard of review and shall not be reversed absent competent

record support.”); Ciaramello v. D’Ambra, 613 So. 2d 1324, 1325 (Fla. 2d

DCA 1991) (“[S]ection 772.11 provides a civil remedy for theft. It entitles a

defendant to recover reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs in the trial

and appellate courts ‘upon a finding that the claimant raised a claim which

was without substantial fact or legal support.’” (quoting § 772.11(1), Fla.

Stat.)); Nodal v. Infinity Auto Ins. Co., 50 So. 3d 721, 724 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)

(reversing a trial court’s denial of attorney’s fees and costs under section

772.11 only where “no record evidence [supported] the factual or legal basis

for [the] civil theft claim”); Alex Hofrichter, P.A. v. Zuckerman & Venditti, P.A.,

710 So. 2d 127, 129 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (finding “an action for conversion

and civil theft will lie where there is a claim that the defendant has

misappropriated or embezzled [funds]”) (footnote omitted).

                                        2