ACHERON PORTFOLIO TRUST
v.
MUKAMAL
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, denying the Trustee's motion for fees.
The Trustee sought attorney's fees under Florida's offer-of-judgment statute. The Magistrate Judge found the statute inapplicable because the Plaintif…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Florida Trust Code cases and more on FLexlaw
ADJUDGED that Defendant Barry Mukamal’s Verified Motion for Fees is DENIED for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation. The Report and Recommendation concludes that § 768.79, Florida’s offer-of-judgment statuté, does not apply because the Plaintiffs claims included a request for non-monetary relief that was not encompassed by the Trustee’s proposal for settlement in this case. In this case, the Plaintiff sought damages but also
‘sought several forms of independent non-monetary equitable relief under the provisions of the Florida Trust Code. The Magistrate Judge found that the Trustee’s general proposals for settlement in this case sought to dispose of Plaintiffs request for monetary and non-monetary
. relief, and finding entitlement to attorney’s fees here would run counter to § 768.79’s limitation to “civil action[s] for damages.” The Trustee raises an objection not considered by Magistrate Indge Strauss in his Report and Recommendation and not raised in the proceedings before him. The Trustee argues that an order entered on November 16, 2020 (the “Trust Administration Order”) in the related case, SEC y. Mutual Benefits, No. 04-60573-CIV-MORENO, mooted Counts 2 and 3 in Plaintiff's complaint in this case, which réquested monetary and non-monetary relief. The Trustee adds that
his proposals for settlement in this case weré issued after the Trust Administration Order was
_ entered, which would have made the non-monetary claims moot and the proposal for settlement statute applicable since in his view, only the monetary claims remainéd at issue. The problem with this argument is that there was never a ruling in this case finding the Trust Administration Order mooted these claims. The claims remained at issue until the summary judgment order at the end of the case. - . The Court must strictly construe Florida Statute § 768.79 because it is in derogation of the common law rule that each party is responsible for its own attorney’s fees. Diamond Aircraft Indus., Inc. v. Horowitch, 107 So. 3d 362, 372 (Fla. 2013). A strict construction compels the Court to overrule the Tiusteé’s objection. Because there was no order mooting the claims in this the statute does not apply to provide the Trustee with an award of fees in this case. : bd DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this / of October 2022.
FEBERICO A.MORENO |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies furnished to: United States Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss Counsel of Record
3 .