JARED SCHMELZER
v.
DEAN FRANKEL
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.
Jared Schmelzer appealed a final judgment and attorney's fee award arising from his rejection of a proposal for settlement in 2018. The court affirmed the final judgment but reversed the attorney's fee award, holding that the proposal for settlement was unenforceable because it requested a release without attaching or summarizing its terms.
A proposal for settlement that requests a release but fails to attach a copy or sufficiently summarize the release terms is unenforceable under the 2018 statute and rule. Therefore, the final judgment is affirmed, but the order awarding attorney's fees is reversed because the proposal for settlement cannot support such an award.
[1] A proposal for settlement that requests execution of a release but fails to attach a copy or sufficiently summarize the release's material terms is unenforceable and does…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The proposal for settlement requested a release, but did not attach a copy or summarize the terms. Under the 2018 statute and rule, this renders the proposal for settlement unenforceable.”
Statement of the core legal issue and holding regarding enforceability of proposals for settlement
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSchmelzer rejected a proposal for settlement in 2018. The proposal requested a release but did not attach a copy or summarize the terms of the release…
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 Proposal For Settlement Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed December 3, 2025.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. Nos. 3D24-1363 & 3D25-0139 Lower Tribunal No. 17-25652-CA-01
Jared Schmelzer,
Appellant,
vs.
Dean Frankel,
Appellee.
Appeals from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Valerie R. Manno Schurr, Judge. Lawson Huck Gonzalez, PLLC, and Jason B. Gonzalez, Mathew D. Gutierrez and Carlos Haag (Tallahassee), for appellant. Lauri Waldman Ross, P.A., and Lauri Waldman Ross; Friedman & Friedman, P.A., and John S. Seligman and Zachary Friedman, for appellee. Before FERNANDEZ, GORDO and GOODEN, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated appeals, Appellant Jared Schmelzer appeals the final judgment and the order awarding attorney's fees for a proposal for settlement he rejected in 2018. We affirm the final judgment, but reverse the order awarding attorney's fees. The proposal for settlement requested a release, but did not attach a copy or summarize the terms. Under the 2018 statute and rule, this renders the proposal for settlement unenforceable. See § 768.79(2), Fla. Stat. (2018); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442(c)(2)(D) (2018); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Nichols, 932 So. 2d 1067, 1079 (Fla. 2006) (explaining proposal for settlement must either attach the release or sufficiently summarize its terms); Gonzalez v. Nobregas, 357 So. 3d 193, 196 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (“Most notably, the proposals require the plaintiff to execute a release but fail to attach or describe the release with sufficient detail."); see also Mix v. Adventist Health Sys./Sunbelt, Inc., 67 So. 3d 289, 292 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part.
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Nichols, 932 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 2006)
- MIX v. Adventist Health System/Sunbelt, Inc., 67 So. 3d 289 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)
- Gonzalez v. Millin A. Nobregas, 357 So. 3d 193 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)