WILLIAM HALES, APPELLANT,
v.
ADVANCED SYSTEMS DESIGN, INC., 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.
William Hales appeals an award of attorney's fees to Advanced Systems Design, Inc., arguing that ASD's settlement proposal was invalid because it contained an overly broad release condition. The court agrees and reverses, holding that settlement proposals must state conditions and non-monetary terms with particularity, and ASD's global release of any future claims failed to meet this requirement.
The court held that ASD's settlement proposal was invalid because the global release condition failed to comply with statutory and rule requirements that proposals state relevant conditions and non-monetary terms with particularity. A settlement proposal that requires release of any claims that might ever arise in the future against the settling party and remotely related entities is too vague and does not allow the plaintiff to reasonably evaluate the settlement offer.
[1] A proposal for settlement must state relevant conditions and non-monetary terms with particularity.
[2] A settlement proposal containing a global release of any claim that might arise in the future against any entity remotely related to the offeror fails to comport with sta…
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“The above-quoted global release of any claim that might arise in the future, against any entity remotely related to appellee, fails to comport with the statute and rule, which require proposals for settlement to state relevant conditions and non-monetary terms with particularity.”
The court's principal holding that the settlement proposal's release condition was too broad and vague to satisfy statutory and rule requirements.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring litigation, ASD served a Proposal for Settlement on Hales for $14,169.46 conditioned on Hales executing a general release that would release AS…
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.
ERVIN, J.
Appellant, William Hales, appeals an order awarding attorney’s fees to appellee, Advanced Systems Design, Inc. (ASD), contending that ASD’s settlement proposal was invalid and thus did not provide a basis for the award under either section 768.79, Florida Statutes (2001), or Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442, and that he did not stipulate to the value of services. We agree and reverse, concluding that ASD’s settlement proposal contained an invalid condition, and therefore do not reach the second issue regarding the stipulated value.
During litigation between the parties, ASD served a Proposal for Settlement on Hales for $14,169.46, conditioned upon the following:
Plaintiff shall execute and deliver to ASD a general release, in a form satisfactory to ASD’s counsel, that releases ASD and its present and former officers (including without limitation Dr. John DuBard), directors, employees, agents, servants, contractors, attorneys, corporate affiliates, successors and assigns of any and all claims at law or in equity, that plaintiff may have against any of those parties, whether known or unknown, liquidated or not liquidated, accrued or not accrued, including without limitation all claims that plaintiff asserted or could have asserted against ASD or Dr. John DuBard in this proceeding^]
Hales did not respond to the proposal, and it was therefore considered rejected. After obtaining final summary judgment, ASD filed a motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to section 768.79 and rule 1.442, which the trial court granted.
The above-quoted global release of any claim that might arise in the future, against any entity remotely related to appellee, fails to comport with the statute and rule, which require proposals for settlement to state relevant conditions and non-monetary terms with particularity.1 Hales could not reasonably evaluate whether the offer to settle for $14,169.46 was sufficient to cover any claim that might ever arise in the future against ASD or any affiliated persons. See Zalis v. M.E.J. Rich Corp., 797 So. 2d 1289 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (holding that a condition in the settlement offer that the plaintiff relinquish all rights to sue about anything at any time, failed to satisfy the statute’s requirement of particularity). Cf. Bd. of Trs. of Fla. Alt. Univ. v. Bowman, 853 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (distinguishing Zalis, because the terms of the release did not apply to future causes of action that might arise, but only to claims by plaintiffs as of the date of execution of the settlement proposal).
REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
ALLEN and LEWIS, JJ., Concur. . For example, rule 1.442(c)(2)(C) states that an offer shall "state with particularity any relevant conditions.”
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Nichols, 932 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 2006)…s Ass’n, 903 So. 2d 1047, 1048 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); Boyd v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 890 So. 2d 1240, 1242 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Swartsel v. Publix Super Mkts., Inc., 882 So. 2d 449, 453 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Hales v. Advanced Sys. Design, Inc., 855 So. 2d 1232, 1233 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). In an earlier case, however, the Third District held that the releases and dismissal required by a settlement proposal “were not ‘conditions’ of the settlement, but rather mechanical and legally inconsequential means of e…
-
Connell v. Floyd, 866 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…tion was not susceptible to meaningful evaluation by the appellee, it was not stated with sufficient particularity to have rendered the proposal valid. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442(c)(2)(C) [*93] & (D); see also Hales v. Advanced Systems, Design, Inc., 855 So. 2d 1232 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)(finding insufficiently particular a proposal’s requirement that an of-feree execute a general release of all future claims because the offeree could not evaluate whether the offer was sufficient to cover any future claims). Acco…
-
Landi v. Home Depot USA, Inc. (M.D. Fla. 2020)…quired release, instead of including the full release with the proposal. See Dryden v. Pedemonti, 910 So. 2d 854 (Dist. Ct. App. Fla. 2005); Nichols v. State Farm Mut., 851 So. 2d 742 (Dist. Ct. App. Fla. 2003); Hales v. Advanced Sys. Design, Inc., 855 So. 2d 1232 (Fla. 2003). The other proposals lacked particularity due to circumstances particular to each case. See Sparklin v. So. Indus. Assocs., Inc., 960 So. 2d 895 (Dist. Ct. App. Fla. 2007) (ambiguity as to whether a proposal made by one defendant req…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- The Bd. OF Trs. OF Fla. Atl. Univ. v. Bowman, 853 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- Zalis v. M.E.J. Rich Corp., 797 So. 2d 1289 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)