Pearson v. Gabrelcik

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Pearson v. Gabrelcik

838 So. 2d 664, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 2468, 2003 WL 721815

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 4, 2003

DocketNo. 1D02-574

StatusPublished

This text of 838 So. 2d 664 (Pearson v. Gabrelcik) 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

Pearson v. Gabrelcik, 838 So. 2d 664, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 2468, 2003 WL 721815 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

•OPINION ON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before us on Appellee’s Motion for Clarification or Certification. We deny the motion for certification, but grant the motion for clarification and, accordingly, withdraw our former opinion of December 4, 2002, and substitute in its place this clarifying opinion.

Appellants appeal an award of attorneys fees based on a proposal for settlement made pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442, and Florida Statutes sections 45.061 and 768.79. We must reverse because the proposal for settlement was invalid because it failed to “state the amount and terms attributable to each party [defendant]” as required by Rule 1.442(c)(3). Hilyer Sod, Inc. v. Willis Shaw Express, Inc., 817 So.2d 1050 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002), rev. granted, 2002 Fla. LEXIS 2402 (Fla. Nov. 5, 2002).

Our decision on this issue renders the remaining issue moot.

REVERSED.

ALLEN, C.J., and BOOTH and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.

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

•OPINION ON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before us on Appellee’s Motion for Clarification or Certification. We deny the motion for certification, but grant the motion for clarification and, accordingly, withdraw our former opinion of December 4, 2002, and substitute in its place this clarifying opinion.

Appellants appeal an award of attorneys fees based on a proposal for settlement made pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442, and Florida Statutes sections 45.061 and 768.79. We must reverse because the proposal for settlement was invalid because it failed to “state the amount and terms attributable to each party [defendant]” as required by Rule 1.442(c)(3). Hilyer Sod, Inc. v. Willis Shaw Express, Inc., 817 So.2d 1050 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002), rev. granted, 2002 Fla. LEXIS 2402 (Fla. Nov. 5, 2002).

Our decision on this issue renders the remaining issue moot.

REVERSED.

ALLEN, C.J., and BOOTH and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

838 So. 2d 664, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 2468, 2003 WL 721815, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pearson-v-gabrelcik-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack