Cibula v. Ross
This text of 597 So. 2d 915 (Cibula v. Ross) 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.
Opinion
Frank G. CIBULA, Jr., individually and Frank G. Cibula, Jr., Richard H. Gaunt, and Kent S. Pratt, Formerly d/b/a Cibula Gaunt and Pratt, Appellants,
v.
Leslie A. ROSS, Jr., Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Philip D. Parrish and Robert M. Klein of Stephens, Lynn, Klein & McNicholas, P.A., Miami, for appellants.
Michael W. Simon of Mattlin & McClosky, Boca Raton, and Steven H. Goldfarb, Boynton Beach, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
While the record establishes the attorney's limited authority to settle the claim against her client, it contains no evidence of her client's clear and unequivocal consent to the filing of an offer of judgment. Because an adverse judgment has ramifications that a voluntary dismissal of a claim does not, authority to settle does not equate to authority to file an offer of judgment. We reverse. See Weitzman v. Bergman, 555 So.2d 448 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Vantage Broadcasting Co. v. WINT Radio, Inc., 476 So.2d 796 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).
GLICKSTEIN, C.J., and DELL and WARNER, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
597 So. 2d 915, 1992 WL 79720, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cibula-v-ross-fladistctapp-1992.