Browning v. Scott

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Browning v. Scott

884 So. 2d 298, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 12126, 2004 WL 1836259

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided August 18, 2004·No. Nos. 2D03-4583, 2D03-5695·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

NORTHCUTT, Judge.

In these consolidated appeals, Karl Browning and Jeffrey Bullard challenge a final judgment in favor of Mr. and Mrs. Scott for damages arising from an accident and an order awarding attorney’s fees to Mr. Scott based on a proposal for settlement. We affirm the damages judgment without discussion, but we reverse the attorney’s fee award.

Section 768.79(3), Florida Statutes (2000), and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442(d) state that an offer of judgment or a proposal for settlement shall be served on the opposing party but shall not be filed unless accepted or unless filing is necessary to enforce the statute or the rule. As Mr. Scott admitted below and on appeal, his proposal for settlement was filed prematurely, in violation of the express requirements of the statute and rule. This court has previously held that a prematurely filed settlement proposal is void. Bottcher v. Walsh, 834 So.2d 183 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Therefore, we reverse the award of attorney’s fees.

Case number 2D03-4583 is affirmed. Case number 2D03-5695 is reversed.

CANADY and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.

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

NORTHCUTT, Judge.

In these consolidated appeals, Karl Browning and Jeffrey Bullard challenge a final judgment in favor of Mr. and Mrs. Scott for damages arising from an accident and an order awarding attorney’s fees to Mr. Scott based on a proposal for settlement. We affirm the damages judgment without discussion, but we reverse the attorney’s fee award.

Section 768.79(3), Florida Statutes (2000), and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442(d) state that an offer of judgment or a proposal for settlement shall be served on the opposing party but shall not be filed unless accepted or unless filing is necessary to enforce the statute or the rule. As Mr. Scott admitted below and on appeal, his proposal for settlement was filed prematurely, in violation of the express requirements of the statute and rule. This court has previously held that a prematurely filed settlement proposal is void. Bottcher v. Walsh, 834 So.2d 183 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Therefore, we reverse the award of attorney’s fees.

Case number 2D03-4583 is affirmed. Case number 2D03-5695 is reversed.

CANADY and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.

Browning v. Scott, 884 So. 2d 298, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 12126, 2004 WL 1836259 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

884 So. 2d 298 (Browning v. Scott) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related