GLORIA ALIOTO-ALEXANDER, APPELLANT,
v.
TOLL BROS., INC., AND JOHN BARR, 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.
Appellant challenged an attorney's fee award based on an offer of judgment made by Toll Brothers under Florida's settlement proposal statute. The court affirmed the fee award, holding that the proposal was not a joint offer requiring apportionment despite conditioning dismissal of claims against a co-defendant.
The proposal was not a joint proposal and therefore did not require apportionment. Although the proposal conditioned dismissal of the entire suit including claims against Barr, the proposal was made by Toll Brothers alone, and the condition regarding Barr's dismissal did not transform it into a multiple-offeror proposal.
[1] A proposal for settlement made by a single offeror, even if conditioned on the dismissal of claims against other parties, is not a joint proposal requiring apportionment…
[2] A proposal for settlement must apportion the amounts attributable to each offeror when made by multiple offerors to support an attorney's fee award.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“A joint proposal shall state the amount and terms attributable to each party.”
Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442(c)(3) requirement for joint settlement proposals
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant sued Toll Brothers for vicarious liability for actions of its employee, John Barr, who was also named as a defendant. During litigation, Tol…
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 Proposal For Settlement cases and more on FLexlaw
In this appeal, appellant, Gloria Alioto-Alexander, challenges an attorney’s fee award in favor of Toll Brothers, Inc. We affirm.
This case arises from a lawsuit in which appellant sued Toll Brothers, Inc., alleging that it was vicariously liable for the actions of its employee, John Barr. Barr was also sued for his actions. During the course of the litigation, Toll Brothers served Alioto-Alexander with a $5,000 proposal for settlement, pursuant to the offer of judgment statute, section 768.79, Florida Statutes (2003). The proposal stated that it was being made by Toll Brothers, but provided that the offer was conditioned upon the dismissal of the entire action, including the claims against Barr. The proposal did not apportion the $5,000 between the claim against Toll Brothers and the claims against Barr. Toll Brothers and Barr prevailed in the underlying ease giving rise to the attorney’s fees judgment on appeal.
Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442, which governs proposals for settlement, specifically provides that “[a] joint proposal shall state the amount and terms attributable to each party.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442(c)(3). Our supreme court has thus held that where an offer is “made by multiple offerors [it] must apportion the amounts attributable to each offeror” in order to support a fee award. Willis Shaw Express, Inc. v. Hilyer Sod, Inc., 849 So.2d 276, 278-79 (Fla.2003). This apportionment requirement applies even where one party’s alleged liability is solely vicarious. See Lamb v. Matetzschk, 906 So.2d 1037 (Fla.2005).
Appellant insists that the proposal for settlement was a “joint proposal” from Toll Brothers and Bair. Accordingly, the proposal cannot support an attorney’s fee award as it failed to apportion the $5,000 *917between Toll Brothers and Barr. We disagree. By its own terms, the proposal for settlement was made by Toll Brothers and Toll Brothers alone was offering to pay the sum of $5,000. The dismissal of the entire suit, including the claims against Barr, was simply a condition of the proposal and did not serve to transform the proposal for settlement into one made by multiple of-ferors.
Affirmed.
MAY, J., and TUTER, JACK, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Andrews v. Frey, 66 So. 3d 376 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)…onditioned acceptance on releasing Rudolph Frey neither created an ambiguity, nor transformed them into joint offers.3 See Eastern Atl. Realty & [*379] Inv., Inc. v. GSOMR LLC, 14 So. 3d 1215 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); Alioto-Alexander v. Toll Bros., Inc., 12 So. 3d 915 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). Appellants also argue that the proposals for settlement were invalid because they did not differentiate the monies offered to settle their individual claims against Shannon and Rudolph Frey, yet required them to release Rudolph…
-
Audiffred v. Arnold (Fla. 2010)…“joint proposal” that renders the offer invalid and unenforceable. See, e.g., Andrews v. Frey, 66 So. 3d 376 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011); Eastern Atl. Realty & Inv. Inc. v. GSOMR LLC, 14 So. 3d 1215 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); Alioto-Alexander v. Toll Bros., Inc., 12 So. 3d 915 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). ANALYSIS Relevant Provisions Section 768.79, Florida Statutes, governs offers of judgment, and rule 1.442 delineates the procedures that implement this statutory provision. See Hilyer Sod, 849 So. 2d at 278. Section 768.79 pr…1 / 2
-
Duplantis v. Brock Specialty Servs., Ltd., 85 So. 3d 1206 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)…t the employee. The only potential remedy would be for the plaintiff to make his or her own offer of judgment to the employee, which we do not think the plaintiff should be forced to make. Brock Specialty relies upon Alioto-Alexander v. Toll Bros., 12 So. 3d 915 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009), for the proposition that an undifferentiated offer from one defendant, conditioned upon dismissal of the entire suit, does not transform an offer into a proposal for settlement made by multiple offerors. It is unclear from Toll…
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
- Willis Shaw Express, Inc. v. Hilyer SOD, Inc., 849 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 2003)
- Lamb v. Matetzschk, 906 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 2005)