Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed December 15, 2021.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D20-1258
Lower Tribunal No. 03-1107-K
________________
Donald J. Barton,
Appellant,
vs.
Stewart J. Andrews and Leda N. Andrews,
Appellees.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Monroe County, Sharon I.
Hamilton, Judge.
Mitchell J. Cook, P.A., and Mitchell J. Cook; W. Sam Holland, for
appellant.
Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A., and Bard D. Rockenbach (West Palm
Beach), for appellees.
Before SCALES, LINDSEY, and MILLER, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
This appeal involves a real property boundary dispute that began over
eighteen years ago. There have been numerous court proceedings and
appeals. The remaining issue involves whether the trial court committed
reversible error in refusing to impose sanctions against Appellees Stewart
and Leda Andrews (Defendants below).
The trial court had before it a motion for sanctions pursuant to section
57.105, Florida Statutes (2021), filed by Appellant Donald J. Barton (Plaintiff
below). In response, the Andrews filed a motion for summary judgment
directed at the motion for sanctions. The trial court went on to grant summary
judgment in their favor. Barton appeals from that order. We treat the order
rendered below as an order denying Barton’s motion for sanctions, which we
review under the abuse of discretion standard. See, e.g., Fils-Aime v.
Roberson,
273 So. 3d 1112, 1114 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (“An appellate court
reviews an order denying a motion for 57.105 sanctions for an abuse of
discretion.”).
This was a heavily litigated boundary dispute with experts on both
sides. As set forth in the order on appeal, “the evidence in the record shows
both sides had competent evidence to support their opposing legal theories
regarding the boundary.” We agree. Given the record before us, the trial
2
did not abuse its discretion in denying Barton’s motion for sanctions. We
therefore affirm.
Affirmed.
3
