SONJA L. BROOKS, APPELLANT,
v.
SOUTH SEMINOLE COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, APPELLEE

Fla. 5th DCA | 1998-06-05
No. 97-1670
DAUKSCH, PETERSON and ANTOON, JJ., concur.
710 So. 2d 1048 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (1998) Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case

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.

Synopsis

Sonja Brooks appealed a judgment awarding attorney's fees and costs to South Seminole Community Hospital under Florida's offer of judgment statute after Brooks' medical malpractice case resulted in a finding of no liability. The court affirmed, rejecting Brooks' arguments that the hospital's offer lacked good faith and that the statute does not permit fee awards absent a judgment in the defendant's favor.


Holding

The hospital was entitled to attorney's fees and costs. The statute, as amended in 1990, permits fee awards when judgments of no liability are rendered. Brooks' allegation that the offer lacked good faith could not be supported without a record transcript, and her statutory interpretation argument failed because the statute explicitly allows fee recovery upon no-liability judgments.


Headnotes

[1] A defendant is entitled to recover attorney's fees and costs under Florida's offer of judgment statute when a judgment of no liability is rendered.

[2] A party appealing a judgment awarding attorney's fees and costs must provide record support for allegations that the offer of judgment was not made in good faith.

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

Key Quotes

“the statute was amended in 1990 to allow an award of fees and costs when judgments of no liability are rendered”

Establishes that the statutory amendment permitted fee awards upon no-liability judgments, directly supporting the court's holding.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Brooks sought damages for sciatic nerve injuries allegedly caused by a hospital nurse's injection. The hospital offered $75,000 in settlement, which B…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Sonja Brooks, pro se, appeals a final judgment awarding attorney’s fees and costs to South Seminole Community Hospital (hospital) pursuant to section 768.79, Florida Statutes (1997), Florida’s offer of judgment statute.1 Brooks sought damages for injuries to her sciatic nerve allegedly caused by an injection given to her by a hospital nurse. The hospital made an offer of judgment for $75,-000 which Ms. Brooks countered with a demand for $175,000. Neither the offer nor the demand was accepted before the trial that resulted in a finding of no liability.

Unfortunately, Ms. Brooks appeared pro se after two successive attorneys withdrew, the first citing irreconcilable differences with the client, and the second citing his client’s refusal to enter a fee agreement with the law firm. Apparently, the trial court allowed Ms. Brooks a reasonable time to seek other coun sel, but she elected to proceed without assistance.

No transcript of the trial exists, nor of the hearing on attorney’s fees and costs. At-hough she argues on appeal that the $75,000 offer of judgment was not made in good faith, she is unable to support her allegation with any record support.

Ms. Brooks also argues that the hospital is not entitled to an award of fees and costs because it did not obtain a judgment in its favor as required by section 768.79, Florida Statutes. That argument also must fail because the statute was amended in 1990 to allow an award of fees and costs when judgments of no liability are rendered. See Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Elbert, 590 So. 2d 15,16 n. 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).

AFFIRMED.

DAUKSCH, PETERSON and ANTOON, JJ., concur. . Section 768.79, Florida Statutes, provides in relevant part:

Offer of judgment and demand for judgment.—

(1) In any civil action for damages filed in the courts of this state, if a defendant files an offer of judgment which is not accepted by the plaintiff within 30 days, the defendant shall be entitled to recover reasonable costs and attorney's fees incurred by her or him or on the defendant's behalf pursuant to a policy of liability insurance or other contract from the date of filing of the offer if the judgment is one of no liability or the judgment obtained by the plaintiff is at least 25 percent less than such offer, and the court shall set off such costs and attorney's fees against the award. Where such costs and attorney’s fees total more than the judgment, the court shall enter judgment for the defendant against the plaintiff for the amount of the costs and fees, less the amount of the plaintiff's award. If a plaintiff filed a demand for judgment which is not accepted by the defendant within 30 days and the plaintiff recovers a judgment in an amount at least 25 percent greater than the offer, she or he shall be entitled to recover reasonable costs and attorney's fees incurred from the date of the filing of the demand. If rejected, neither an offer nor demand is admissible in subsequent litigation, except for pursuing the penalties of this section.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Unifund CCR P'rs v. Cleary (9th Cir. Ct. App. Div. 2009)
    …torney’s fees based on Cleary’s proposal for settlement was not an abuse of discretion. See MX Inv., Inc. v. Crawford, 700 So. 2d 640, 642 (Fla. 1997); Nants v. Griffin, 783 So. 2d 363, 365 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Brooks v. South Seminole Comty. Hosp., 710 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). We further find that based upon the record before us, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining the amount of attorney’s fees and expert witness fees to award to Cleary. See Wilson v. Griffiths, 811 So. 2d 709,…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw