06-6646 JAMES CLEMENTS v. BOBBY B. ROSE and MAUDEANNA ROSE

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Florida First District Court » 2008 » 06-6646 JAMES CLEMENTS v. BOBBY B. ROSE and MAUDEANNA ROSE

State: Florida

Court: Florida First District Court

Docket No: 06-6646

Case Date: 04/21/2008

Preview:IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA JAMES CLEMENTS, Appellant, v. BOBBY B. ROSE and MAUDEANNA ROSE, Appellees. ___________________________/ Opinion filed April 21, 2008. An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. Charles O. Mitchell, Jr., Judge. Brett A. Hastings, Ivania Perez, Thomas J. Fraser, Jr., and Crystal Ganpath of Reznicsek, Fraser & Hastings, P.A., Ponte Vedra Beach, for Appellant. Sean C. Barber, Orange Park, for Appellees. NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D06-6646

THOMAS, J. Appellant appeals the trial court's order denying his motion for attorneys' fees filed pursuant to section 768.79, Florida Statutes (2007). Because the trial court erred by determining that Appellant's settlement proposal was ambiguous, we reverse the order denying attorneys' fees.

Appellant filed a lawsuit against Appellees after he was bitten by their dog, and he later offered to settle his lawsuit. The pertinent language of the settlement offer states: 5. TOTAL AMOUNT OF PROPOSAL: Seventy-Five Thousand and no/100 Dollars ($75,000.00), payable to Plaintiff, JAMES CLEMENTS; (Thirty-Seven Thousand Five Hundred and no/100 Dollars ($37,500.00) from Defendant, BOBBY B. ROSE, and Thirty-Seven Thousand Five Hundred and no/100 Dollars ($37,500.00) from Defendant, MAUDEANNA ROSE.)

Appellees rejected Appellant's settlement offer. On December 14, 2005, a jury returned a verdict in favor of Appellant, and the court entered judgment against both Appellees, jointly and severally, for $120,000. Appellant then filed a motion seeking attorneys' fees and costs based on section 768.79, Florida Statutes, which awards attorneys' fees to a prevailing party whose settlement offer is rejected by the opposing party and the prevailing party is subsequently awarded an amount 25% greater than its proposed settlement amount. The trial court denied Appellant's motion, reasoning that his settlement offer did not satisfy rule 1.442, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, requiring that a joint offer state the amount and terms attributable to each party and state with particularity any relevant conditions. The trial court found that the proposal was ambiguous as to

-2-

whether each Appellee could settle separately or whether the settlement offer required both Appellees' agreement. We find no such ambiguity. When a party offers to settle with multiple parties at the same time, the joint proposal shall state the amount and terms attributable to each party. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442(c)(3). "Each defendant should be able to settle the suit knowing the extent of his or her financial responsibility." Lamb v. Matetzschk, 906 So. 2d 1037, 1040 (Fla. 2005). "If ambiguity within the proposal could reasonably affect the offeree's decision, the proposal will not satisfy the particularity requirement." State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Nichols, 932 So. 2d 1067, 1079 (Fla. 2006). Rule 1.442 requires that a settlement offer be "sufficiently clear and definite to allow the offeree to make an informed decision without needing clarification." Id. In the instant case, Appellant's settlement offer apportioned the amount each Appellee was responsible to pay, as required by rule 1.442(c)(3) and explained in Lamb. 906 So. 2d at 1042 ("[T]he plain language of rule 1.442(c)(3) mandates that a joint proposal for settlement differentiate between the parties."). The settlement proposal is conditional upon both Appellees

Download 06-6646 JAMES CLEMENTS v. BOBBY B. ROSE and MAUDEANNA ROSE.pdf