Henson v. Haslam

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Henson v. Haslam

644 So. 2d 1031, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 11333, 1994 WL 637688

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 16, 1994

DocketNo. 94-00016

StatusPublished

This text of 644 So. 2d 1031 (Henson v. Haslam) 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

Henson v. Haslam, 644 So. 2d 1031, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 11333, 1994 WL 637688 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

CAMPBELL, Judge.

Appellant, Elizabeth G. Henson, challenges the final judgment entered on her personal injury claim against appellee, Julie M. Has-lam. Appellee cross-appeals the court’s denial of her request for attorney’s fees under section 45.061, Florida Statutes (1991) and the court’s decision to award appellant those costs that resulted when appellant’s expert witnesses were cancelled due.to a continuance. We affirm on all issues except for the denial of appellee’s request for attorney’s fees.

Under section 45.061, there is a statutory rebuttable presumption that where there is a verdict for the defendant, the plaintiff must have unreasonably rejected a defendant’s previous offer of judgment. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Malmberg, 639 So.2d 615 (Fla.1994). Any determination that the presumption has been rebutted and that the rejection was “reasonable,” should be supported by express findings and not a mere conclusion as to reasonableness. See O’Neil v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 602 So.2d 1342, 1343 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). Since the trial judge here concluded that plaintiff’s/appellee’s rejection of the defendant’s/appellant’s offer was “reasonable,” without making such supporting findings, we reverse the order denying attorney’s fees and remand for the necessary findings.

FRANK, C.J., and THREADGILL, J., concur.

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

CAMPBELL, Judge.

Appellant, Elizabeth G. Henson, challenges the final judgment entered on her personal injury claim against appellee, Julie M. Has-lam. Appellee cross-appeals the court’s denial of her request for attorney’s fees under section 45.061, Florida Statutes (1991) and the court’s decision to award appellant those costs that resulted when appellant’s expert witnesses were cancelled due.to a continuance. We affirm on all issues except for the denial of appellee’s request for attorney’s fees.

Under section 45.061, there is a statutory rebuttable presumption that where there is a verdict for the defendant, the plaintiff must have unreasonably rejected a defendant’s previous offer of judgment. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Malmberg, 639 So.2d 615 (Fla.1994). Any determination that the presumption has been rebutted and that the rejection was “reasonable,” should be supported by express findings and not a mere conclusion as to reasonableness. See O’Neil v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 602 So.2d 1342, 1343 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). Since the trial judge here concluded that plaintiff’s/appellee’s rejection of the defendant’s/appellant’s offer was “reasonable,” without making such supporting findings, we reverse the order denying attorney’s fees and remand for the necessary findings.

FRANK, C.J., and THREADGILL, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

644 So. 2d 1031, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 11333, 1994 WL 637688, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henson-v-haslam-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack