CARL A. ROSE, APPELLANT,
v.
THEODORE S. HALL, INDIVIDUALLY, ET AL., APPELLEES
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.
Rose sought to withdraw his acceptance of a settlement offer made before the Florida Supreme Court's Unicare decision, which changed the law regarding attorney's fees in settlement agreements. The court held that Rose is entitled to a hearing to determine whether he can rescind based on mistake of law, reversing the trial court's refusal to permit withdrawal.
The trial court erred in refusing to permit Rose to withdraw his acceptance. Rose is entitled to a hearing before the trial court to determine whether he may rescind based on mistake, with the court considering whether there was an inexcusable lack of due care or a change in position by the appellee that would make rescission unconscionable.
[1] A trial court errs in refusing to permit a party to withdraw acceptance of a settlement offer when the acceptance was made prior to a controlling judicial decision that c…
[2] A party's right to rescind acceptance of a settlement offer based on mistake is a question of fact to be determined by the trial court.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Unicare held that acceptance of an offer silent as to attorney's fees bars any subsequent claim for fees. Previously, we had taken the contrary view in Seminole Colony, Inc. v. Stanko”
Establishes that the law changed between the time of Rose's acceptance and the Unicare decision, supporting Rose's position
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRose accepted an offer of settlement prior to the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Unicare Health Facilities, Inc. v. Mort, which held that accepta…
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 Mistake cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We agree with appellant that the trial court erred in refusing to permit him to withdraw his acceptance of an offer of settlement. The acceptance of the offer was made prior to the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Unicare Health Facilities, Inc. v. Mort, 553 So. 2d 159 (Fla.1989).
Unicare held that acceptance of an offer silent as to attorney’s fees bars any subsequent claim for fees. Previously, we had taken the contrary view in Seminole Colony, Inc. v. Stanko, 501 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987).
Seminole Colony was the prevailing view in this district at the time the offer was accepted. We do not resolve by this opinion whether the appellant is entitled to withdraw his acceptance of the offer on grounds of mistake. The appellant’s right to rescind is a question of fact to be determined by the trial court upon a hearing at which the court would determine not only the fact of mistake, but whether there was an inexcusable lack of due care, or a change in position by appellee that would make rescission unconscionable. See generally, BMW of North America, Inc. v. Krathen, 471 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), rev. denied, 484 So. 2d 7 (Fla.1986); Maryland Casualty Co. v. Krasnek, 174 So. 2d 541 (Fla.1965); Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc. v. Palm Beach Hotel Condominium Ass’n, Inc., 454 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Pennsylvania Nat’l Mut. Casualty Ins. Co. v. Anderson, 445 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 453 So. 2d 43 (Fla.1984).
See also Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 151 (1982).
We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent herewith.
GUNTHER and STONE, JJ., concur. ANSTEAD, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with opinion.
ANSTEAD, Judge,
concurs in part and dissents in part.
I would remand with directions that the appellant be permitted to have the settlement judgment set aside since it appears to be undisputed that appellant relied on our decision in Seminole Colony to preserve his claim for attorney’s fees.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- BMW OF N. Am., Inc. v. Krathen, 471 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Md. Cas. Co. v. Krasnek, 174 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 1965)
- Unicare Health Facilities, Inc. v. Mort, 553 So. 2d 159 (Fla. 1989)
- Pa. Nat'l Mut. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Anderson, 445 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc. v. Palm Beach Hotel Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 454 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Seminole Colony, Inc. v. Stanko, 501 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)