WALGREEN COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
JOSEPH SKLANDIS, 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.
Walgreen Company's appeal of a personal injury judgment was affirmed on the fraud-on-the-court and evidence-admission issues, but the attorney's fees award was remanded for recalculation using the correct settlement proposal date.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to dismiss for fraud on the court or in excluding documentary evidence of fraud, and the attorney's fees award was proper but must be recalculated using the correct settlement proposal date.
[1] A trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to dismiss for fraud on the court when the defendant fails to establish the requisite elements of such fra…
[2] Attorney's fees under Florida's offer of judgment statute must be calculated from the date of the correct settlement proposal, not an earlier proposal.
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJoseph Sklandis brought a personal injury action against Walgreen Company. The trial court awarded judgment in Sklandis' favor and subsequently awarde…
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 Settlement Proposals cases and more on FLexlaw
WELLS, Judge.
In this personal injury action, Walgreen Company appeals a final judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of Joseph SMan-dis claiming that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to dismiss this action for fraud on the court and for refusing to permit it to introduce documentary evidence of that fraud. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s rulings in either respect and affirm the final judgment.
Walgreen Company also appeals a final judgment awarding attorney’s fees and costs to Sklandis pursuant to a proposal for settlement dated February 7, 2002. At oral argument, Sklandis’ counsel conceded that the wrong settlement proposal had been used when calculating attorney’s fees and costs, and that a proposal dated January 8, 2003, should have been used instead. We agree. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s determination that Sklandis is entitled to an award of fees and costs, including the expert witness fee awarded, but remand with directions to reduce the fee and cost judgment to award fees and costs incurred only after January 8, 2003. See § 768.79(1), Fla. Stat. (2000)(stating that a recovering plaintiff should recover “reasonable costs and attorney’s fees incurred from the date of the filing of the demand”).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, remanded with instructions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kearney v. Auto-Owners Ins., 713 F. Supp. 2d 1369 (M.D. Fla. 2010)…46, 1150 (11th Cir.2008). See also Jones v. United Space Alliance, LLC, 494 F.3d 1306, 1309-10 (11th Cir.2007). 41 . No. 8:07-cv-1490-T-24-MAP, 2008 WL 5341148, at *4 (M.D.Fla. Dec. 19, 2008) (relying on Walgreen Co. v. Sklandis, 895 So.2d 1201 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)). Kearney distinguishes Arnold because the plaintiff in Arnold did not dispute the award of expert witness fees as a cost. 42 . The Court instructs Auto-Owners to prepare a summary of its costs in a chart format using Micr…