ELIZABETH RIVERA AND EDWARD RIVERA, APPELLANTS,
v.
PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, 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.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal reverses an award of attorneys fees based on an offer of judgment that failed to specify non-monetary terms with the particularity required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442(c)(2). The court holds that conditions such as the execution of a general release, no-lien affidavit, and hold harmless agreement must be stated in the offer itself, not merely made available for review at an attorney's office.
No. The offer of judgment was deficient because it failed to state with particularity the conditions of settlement. The rule requires that the offer itself contain the non-monetary terms, not merely offer to make forms available for review at an attorney's office.
[1] An offer of judgment must state with particularity all non-monetary terms and conditions.
[2] An offer of judgment is insufficient if it fails to attach copies of proposed settlement documents and instead offers review at the offeror's attorney's office.
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“language of offer under rule 1.442 'must be construed in favor of the offeree when it does not make clear precisely what is being proposed'”
Establishes the principle that ambiguous offer language must be interpreted favorably to the offeree
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePublix Super Markets made an offer of judgment to Elizabeth and Edward Rivera that conditioned settlement on the offerees executing a general release,…
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.
FARMER, J.
Once again, we reverse a final order awarding attorneys fees under an offer of judgment that failed to state the non-monetary terms with the particularity required by the rule. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442(c)(2)(C)-(D); Swartsel v. Publix Super Mkts., Inc., 882 So. 2d 449, 452 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (language of offer under rule 1.442 “must be construed in favor of the offeree when it does not make clear precisely what is being proposed”); Palm Beach Polo Holdings, Inc. v. Village of Wellington, 904 So. 2d 652, 653 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (offer for “settlement must state with particularity any relevant conditions and all non-monetary terms”).
In this case, the offer specified as conditions of the settlement being proposed that the offeree execute a general release, a no-lien affidavit, a “hold harmless” agreement, and a stipulation for dismissal. No other terms of these proposed documents were stated, and no copies of any forms to be used were attached to the offer. The offeror’s willingness to allow the offeree to review these proposed agreements at the offices of the offeror’s attorney is facially insufficient. The rule requires that the offer itself state these conditions, and not a form tucked away in an office somewhere. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442(c)(2) (“a proposal shall [state] ... ”).
We also reject the argument that our decision in Swartsel is not applicable to cases in progress when it was released. An appellate opinion explaining and applying the meaning of the law is applicable to all cases in progress and not yet final when it was released. See Smith v. State, 598 So. 2d 1063, 1065-66 (Fla.1992) (decision “announcing a new rule of law, or merely applying an established rule of law to a new or different factual situation, must be given retrospective application by [Florida] courts in every case pending on direct review or not yet final;” issue must be raised in trial court to preserve it for review); Hendeles v. Sanford Auto Auction, Inc., 364 So. 2d 467, 468 (Fla.1978) (“disposition of case on appeal should be made in accord with law in effect when appellate court’s decision is made” rather than law in effect when judgment was rendered); Fla. East Coast Ry. Co. v. Rouse, 194 So. 2d 260, 262 (Fla.1967) (Florida rule is that appellate court reviewing judgment on direct appeal will dispose of case according to law prevailing at time of appellate disposition, and not according to law prevailing at time of rendition of judgment appealed); Clay v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Amer., 670 So. 2d 1153, 1154 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (in reviewing judgments on direct appeal, appellate courts required to apply law prevailing when decision on appeal is made).
Rouse was overruled by Smith only to the extent that Rouse did not appear to require that the issue actually had been first raised in the trial court and thus preserved for appellate review. The general rule applying the law in effect when the decision is made is undeniably true when the earlier appellate decision does not change the law, but merely interprets and applies it.
Reversed.
GUNTHER, J., and DONNER, AMY STEELE, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mourning v. Ballast Nedam Constr., Inc., 964 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…ent activity on the face of the record during the relevant time period (two notices of change of address and a notice of absence from the jurisdiction), and cited Wilson. Id. at 1128. The ninth bright-line case, Rivera v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., 929 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), again involved Rule 1.442. This Court reversed an order awarding attorney’s fees based on an offer of judgment, finding that the offer failed to state its non-monetary terms with the particularity required by Rule 1.442(c)(2)(C)…
-
Menard v. Univ. Radiation Oncology Assocs., LLP, 976 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…). If it cannot be so divided legally, then the entire parcel may be sold at public sale and only debtor’s pro rata share will be exempt. Second, we also affirm the denial of fees under the offer of settlement. Rivera v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., 929 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (holding that offer of judgment must state all non-monetary conditions). This case is remanded for judgment accordingly. WARNER and GROSS, JJ., concur. . The papers stated that at the final meeting between the parties in regard…
-
In re Baby R.P.S. J.C.J. v. Heart of Adoptions, Inc., 942 So. 2d 906 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…e to his failure to register as required by section 63.062. While the general rule is that recent case law will be applied to cases pending before this court only if the issue was preserved at the trial level, see Rivera v. Publix Super Mkts., Inc., 929 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), due to the fundamental nature of this error, we choose to address this issue even though it was not preserved, see Sanford v. Rubin, 237 So. 2d 134 (Fla.1970) (defining fundamental error as that which goes to the foundation of t…
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
- Rhoda Smith v. State, 598 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 1992)
- Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. Rouse, 194 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 1966)
- Hendeles v. Sanford Auto Auction, Inc., 364 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 1978)
- Swartsel v. Publix Super Mkts., Inc., 882 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
- Palm Beach Polo Holdings, Inc. v. The Vill. OF Wellington, 904 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
- Clay v. The Prudential Ins. Co. OF Am., 670 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)