With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and the decision held them liable only for attorney’s fees that resulted, at least in part, from their wrongful conduct of removing assets from the trust that was the subject of the lawsuit. It does not hold a nonparty liable for an underlying judgment. The main line of authority relied upon by Bermudez consists of a series of cases from this court holding that a nonparty to litigation who funds and controls vexatious litigation can be deemed a party for purposes of paying costs and attorney’s fees. See Abu-Ghazaleh v. Chaul, 36 So.3d 691 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (attorney’s fees under civil theft statute); Visoly v. Sec. Pac. Credit Corp., 768 So.2d 482 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (attorney’s fees under section 57.105, Florida Statutes); Lage v. Blanco, 521 So.2d 299, 300 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (<HOLDING>). These cases deal only with attorney’s fees

A: holding attorneys deemed parties for purposes of paying attorneys fees resulting from frivolous lawsuit they filed without clients authority
B: holding trial court erred in awarding attorneys fees to physicians in absence of any evidence of attorneys fees
C: holding trial court had no authority to award attorneys fees when arbitrator had stated he would not award attorneys fees
D: holding that attorneys and not clients choose the arguments to present
A.