KAREN GASPERIN AND RICHARD GASPERIN, APPELLANTS/CROSS APPELLEES,
v.
SHIRLEY ANN REEVES, APPELLEE/CROSS APPELLANT
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 held that the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion for fees and costs after the plaintiff rejected a settlement offer and obtained a verdict less than seventy-five percent of the offer.
The defendant made a settlement offer pursuant to statute, which the plaintiffs rejected. At trial, the plaintiffs obtained a verdict significantly le…
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 Offer Of Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
DANAHY, Acting Chief Judge.
This is an appeal and cross-appeal from a final judgment in a personal injury action based upon a three-car chain collision accident in March 1990.1 We find no merit in the issues the Gasperins raise and thus affirm on their direct appeal. We reverse on Reeves’ cross-appeal from a denial of fees and costs since the date her offer of settlement was rejected.
Reeves made an offer of judgment to the Gasperins pursuant to sections 768.79 and 45.061, Florida Statutes (1991). The settlement offer included fees and costs to date and provided that the sum stated was the total offered for the claims made by the Gasperins. The Gasperins rejected the offer but at trial obtained a verdict less than seventy-five percent of Reeves’ offer. This mathematical calculation entitled Reeves to an award of fees and costs since the date of her offer. TGI Friday’s, Inc. v. Dvorak, 663 So. 2d 606 (Fla.1995).
The trial court made no finding that there was bad faith on Reeves’ part in making the offer, and indeed the record would support no such finding.
Thus the trial court should have entered an order awarding Reeves fees and costs.
We reject the Gasperins’ argument that Reeves showed bad faith in making an offer which was vastly below what they had already expended on attorneys’ fees as of the date of the offer.
We reverse the trial court’s order denying Reeves her fees and costs since the date of the offer and remand for further proceedings in accord with this opinion.
FRANK and FULMER, JJ., concur. . Karen Gasperin was driving the middle car which was struck from behind by the car driven by Shirley Ann Reeves.