Atfeh v. Gichimu

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Atfeh v. Gichimu

136 So. 3d 1274, 2014 WL 1632124, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 6060

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 25, 2014

DocketNo. 5D13-2070

StatusPublished

This text of 136 So. 3d 1274 (Atfeh v. Gichimu) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Atfeh v. Gichimu, 136 So. 3d 1274, 2014 WL 1632124, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 6060 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellants challenge the order awarding attorney’s fees based on a proposal for settlement. Because the proposal failed to comply with the rule in effect at the time it was served, we reverse.

On August 12, 2010, Appellee served a $150,000 proposal for settlement on Appellants. The proposal did not state the amount and terms attributable to each Appellant. At the time of the proposal, Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442(c)(3) (2010), required that a proposal state the amount and terms attributable to each party but did not yet provide an exception to such rule with respect to a party that is alleged to be solely vicariously liable. Appellants did not accept Appellee’s settlement proposal, and after a trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Appellee in the amount of $281,296.23. Appellee then moved for attorney’s fees under section 768.79, Florida Statutes (2010). Appellants objected, arguing that, as a result of Appellee’s failure to comply with rule 1.442(c)(3), the proposal for settlement was invalid. The trial court rejected Appellants’ argument and awarded Appellee attorney’s fees in the amount of $162,400. Appellants appeal this attorney’s fee award.

We reverse. See D.A.B. Constructors, Inc. v. Oliver, 914 So.2d 462 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).

REVERSED.

TORPY, C.J., GRIFFIN and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appellants challenge the order awarding attorney’s fees based on a proposal for settlement. Because the proposal failed to comply with the rule in effect at the time it was served, we reverse.

On August 12, 2010, Appellee served a $150,000 proposal for settlement on Appellants. The proposal did not state the amount and terms attributable to each Appellant. At the time of the proposal, Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442(c)(3) (2010), required that a proposal state the amount and terms attributable to each party but did not yet provide an exception to such rule with respect to a party that is alleged to be solely vicariously liable. Appellants did not accept Appellee’s settlement proposal, and after a trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Appellee in the amount of $281,296.23. Appellee then moved for attorney’s fees under section 768.79, Florida Statutes (2010). Appellants objected, arguing that, as a result of Appellee’s failure to comply with rule 1.442(c)(3), the proposal for settlement was invalid. The trial court rejected Appellants’ argument and awarded Appellee attorney’s fees in the amount of $162,400. Appellants appeal this attorney’s fee award.

We reverse. See D.A.B. Constructors, Inc. v. Oliver, 914 So.2d 462 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).

REVERSED.

TORPY, C.J., GRIFFIN and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 So. 3d 1274, 2014 WL 1632124, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 6060, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atfeh-v-gichimu-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack