J.J.'S MAE, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
MILLIKEN & COMPANY, AND JONATHAN BIRTH, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HIS PARENTS AND NEXT FRIENDS, DAVID BIRTH AND SANDRA BIRTH, AND DAVID BIRTH, INDIVIDUALLY, AND SANDRA BIRTH, INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLEES
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Florida Rule Of Civil Procedure 1.442 cases and more on FLexlaw
WARNER, C.J.
We reverse the award of attorney’s fees recovered pursuant to an offer of judgment. The offer contained various conditions requiring the offeree to satisfy certain liens. In Martin v. Brousseau, 564 So. 2d 240, 241 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), we held that an offer of judgment which imposed conditions was invalid under the rule and statute. When the court decided Martin, Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442, regarding offers of judgment, did not allow for any conditions to be included in an offer. Although the rule has subsequently been amended to permit the inclusion of conditions, see rule 1.442(c)(2)(C), appellant was entitled to consider the offer under the law in effect at the time the offer was made. See Metropolitan Dade County v. Jones Boatyard, Inc., 611 So. 2d 512, 513-14 (Fla.1993); Brodose v. School Bd. of Pinellas County, 622 So. 2d 513, 515 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Thus, the conditions of this offer rendered it invalid, and the attorney’s fee award made pursuant to the offer is reversed.
DELL and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dryden v. Pedemonti, 910 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…e agree with Judge Glickstein’s dissenting view in Martin that the “tail [of] additional documents [should not] wag the dog” of the rejected offer. Martin, 564 So. 2d at 241. Codina, 732 So. 2d at 366-67; compare J.J.’s Mae, Inc. v. Milliken & Co., 763 So. 2d 1106, 1106-07 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (affirming rejection of attorney’s fees under old Rule 1.442 because proposal required offeree to satisfy liens but acknowledging that rule had been amended to allow for such conditions). I would follow the third distric…
-
Gulf Coast Transp., Inc. v. Eloisa Andrea Padron, 782 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…o resolve; (C) state with particularity any relevant conditions; Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442(c)(2) (emphasis added). Thus, the rule in effect at the time Gulf Coast made its offer specifically contemplated conditions. J.J.’s Mae, Inc. v. Milliken & Co., 763 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (recognizing that its prior case law has been superseded by the 1997 amendment of rule 1.442). For these rea [*467] sons, we find McMullen Oil distinguishable from this case. Gulf Coast also argues that the trial court incorrect…
Authorities Cited
- Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Jones Boatyard, Inc., 611 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 1993)
- Martin v. Brousseau, 564 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- Brodose v. The Sch. Bd. OF Pinellas Cnty., 622 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)