ELIZABETH G. HENSON, APPELLANT,
v.
JULIE M. HASLAM, APPELLEE
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.
Florida appellate court reversed denial of attorney's fees under section 45.061 where trial court failed to make express findings supporting its conclusion that plaintiff reasonably rejected defendant's offer of judgment.
Where a defendant obtains a verdict and invokes section 45.061's statutory presumption, the trial court must make express findings—not mere conclusions—to rebut the presumption that the plaintiff unreasonably rejected the defendant's offer of judgment.
[1] Under section 45.061, Florida Statutes, when a defendant obtains a verdict, the trial court must make express findings of fact—not mere conclusions—to rebut the statutory…
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“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.”
Court explaining the evidentiary standard required to overcome the statutory presumption in section 45.061 cases.
Appellant Henson brought a personal injury claim against appellee Haslam. Haslam made an offer of judgment that Henson rejected, and the case proceede…
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 Trial Court Findings cases and more on FLexlaw
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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Malmberg, 639 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 1994)
- O'Neil v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 602 So. 2d 1342 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)