ALANWOOD HOLDING CO., A DELAWARE CORPORATION; JOSEPH KALMAN, INDIVIDUALLY; AND JOSEPH KALMAN, TRUSTEE OF THE JOSEPH KALMAN TRUST AS ASSIGNEES OF ALANWOOD HOLDING CO., APPELLANTS,
v.
STEPHEN ROBERT THOMPSON, TRUSTEE UTD 10/1/93; C.S. EYTEL, INDIVIDUALLY, A/K/A CHARLES EYTEL, D/B/A CARRIAGE CT., INC.; TRADITIONAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC.; WILLIAM STACKPOOLE, INDIVIDUALLY; DOWNING-FRYE REALTY, INC.; AND ROBERT RANDALL LUCAS, INDIVIDUALLY, 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.
Alanwood and Kalman appealed trial court orders awarding attorney's fees and costs to defendants in a real property contract dispute. The court affirmed the fees awarded to the contract parties Thompson and Eytel but reversed the fees awarded to non-party brokers Downing-Frye and Lucas, finding their settlement proposal defective under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442.
Thompson and Eytel were properly awarded attorney's fees and costs as prevailing parties under the contract's fee-shifting clause. However, Downing-Frye and Lucas were not entitled to attorney's fees because their settlement proposal was defective under Rule 1.442, as it was a general lump sum proposal to multiple parties that did not specify the amount offered to each party.
[1] A proposal for settlement made pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442 and Florida Statutes section 768.79 must be strictly construed.
[2] The offer of judgment statute applies only to civil actions "for damages."
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Due to the fact that one of the summary judgments was entered in favor of Thompson and Eytel, they were properly awarded attorney's fees and costs as the prevailing parties.”
Establishes that Thompson and Eytel's fees were properly awarded under the contract's prevailing party clause.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAlanwood and Kalman filed suit seeking damages and equitable remedies related to a real property purchase contract they had executed with Thompson and…
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 Prevailing Party Attorney'S Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
SALCINES, Judge.
Alanwood Holding Co., Joseph Kalman, individually, and Joseph Kalman, Trustee of the Joseph Kalman Trust as Assignees of Alanwood Holding Co., (Alanwood and Kalman) appeal the trial court orders which granted attorney’s fees and costs to Stephen Robert Thompson, Trustee UTD 10/1/93; C.S. Eytel, individually, a/k/a Charles Eytel, d/b/a Carriage Ct., Inc. (Thompson and Eytel); Downing Frye Realty, Inc.; and Robert Randall Lucas. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Alanwood and Kalman filed a complaint seeking damages and equitable remedies relating to a contract for the purchase of real property. The contract had been executed by Alanwood and Kalman as buyers and by Thompson and Eytel as sellers. Downing Frye Realty and Lucas were the listing real estate brokers for the property that was the subject of the contract. The brokers had been sued for monetary dam ages based upon allegations of fraud and misrepresentation. Final summary judgments were entered by the trial court against Alanwood and Kalman. These judgments have been affirmed by this court in a separate appeal.1
The contract for the sale of real property provided that in connection with any litigation concerning the contract, the prevailing party was entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. Due to the fact that one of the summary judgments was entered in favor of Thompson and Eytel, they were properly awarded attorney’s fees and costs as the prevailing parties. We affirm this award.
Downing-Frye and Lucas were not parties to the contract but were awarded attorney’s fees and costs by the trial court because they had presented a proposal of settlement, pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442, to Alanwood and Kalman, which they rejected. We note that the proposal merely stated that Downing-Frye and Lucas were offering to Alanwood and Kalman the total sum of $250.00 to settle all the'claims against the two offerors which had been raised in the complaint. This proposal of settlement was inadequate.
This court has repeatedly held that a general lump sum proposal of settlement to more than one offeree which does not specify the amount offered to each party is defective as it violates the rule. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Materiale, 787 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); RLS Bus. Ventures, Inc. v. Second Chance Wholesale, Inc., 784 So. 2d 1194 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); U.S.A.A. v. Behar, 752 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Accordingly, we reverse the award of attorney’s fees and costs to Downing-Frye and Lucas.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and STRINGER, J., Concur. . Consolidated appeal case numbers 2D99-4799 and 2DOO-974.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Justyna Brysiak Clipper v. BAY Oaks Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 810 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…, Inc. v. Robinson, 736 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (reviewing offer from multiple defendants to one plaintiff). In this district, however, we have required more exact compliance with the language of the rule. See Alanwood Holding Co. v. Thompson, 789 So. 2d 485, 486 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (“[T]his court has repeatedly held that a general lump sum proposal of settlement to more than one offeree which does not specify the amount offered to each party is defective....”); United Servs. Auto. Ass’n v. Behar, 752 So…
-
Crespo v. Woodland Lakes Creative Ret. Concepts, Inc., 845 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…y required strict compliance with rale 1.442(c)(3) before it will uphold an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to the proposal at issue. See, e.g., Clipper v. Bay Oaks Condo. Ass’n, 810 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Alanwood Holding Co. v. Thompson, 789 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); United Servs. Auto. Ass’n v. Behar, 752 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). In this case, Woodland Lakes and Richardson each made separate proposals to the Crespos. However, because the proposals did not state the amounts attributabl…
Authorities Cited
- United Servs. Auto. Ass'n v. Raymond J. Behar, M.D., 752 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Materiale, 787 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- RLS Bus. Ventures, Inc. v. Second Chance Wholesale, Inc., 784 So. 2d 1194 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)