Mark Tinker, a shareholder in the St. Petersburg office, was recently retained by a client who had not only been ordered to surrender her rights in an annuity to her ex-husband, but had also been sanctioned for contesting the matter. The trial judge concluded that her position was “so clearly devoid of merit both on the facts and the law as to be completely untenable,” and thus ordered her to pay her ex-husband’s attorney’s fees as a sanction. The client asked Mr. Tinker to appeal both of those rulings. He did, and in an April 23, 2010 opinion, the Second District ruled that the client was entitled to get her annuity back, was accordingly not taking a frivolous position and was entitled to the attorney’s fees back, and that furthermore her ex-husband would be required to pay Mr. Tinker’s fees for the appeal.
