IN RE AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1.442
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 Court amends Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442(f)(1) to replace a reference to a deleted rule with a reference to a new rule regarding additional time after service by mail or e-mail.
[1] A notice of acceptance of a proposal for settlement must be served within thirty days of service of the proposal.
[2] The additional five-day time period for acting after service by mail or e-mail does not apply to the acceptance or rejection of proposals for settlement.
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 intelligenceThe Florida Bar's Civil Procedure Rules Committee proposed an amendment to Rule 1.442(f)(1) to address a potential conflict arising from a deleted rul…
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
Before the Court is an out-of-cycle amendment to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442 proposed by The Florida Bar’s Civil Procedure Rules Committee (Committee), pursuant to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration.2.140(e).1 We have jurisdiction, see art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const., and amend rule 1.442 as proposed.
AMENDMENT
Rule 1.442(f)(1) (Proposals for Settlement; Acceptance and Rejection) currently provides that the provisions of recently deleted Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.090(e) (Additional Time after Service by Mail),2 which allowed an additional five days for an action to be done after service by mail, does not apply to proposals for settlement. In order to resolve the potential conflict that the Committee believes the reference to rule 1.090(e) may create, we amend rule 1.442(f)(1) to replace the reference to the deleted rule with a reference to new Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.514(b) (Computing and Extending Time; Additional Time after Service by Mail or E-mail). The amendment clarifies that a notice of ac*1210ceptance of a proposal for settlement must be served within thirty days of service of the proposal, and new rule 2.514(b), which allows an additional five days to act after service by mail or e-mail, does not apply.
Accordingly, we amend Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442 as reflected in the appendix to this opinion. New language is indicated by underscoring; deletions are indicated by struck-through type. The amendment shall become effective immediately upon the release of this opinion. Because the amendment was not published for comment prior to its adoption, interested persons shall have sixty days from the date of this opinion in which to file comments with the Court.3
It is so ordered.
POLSTON, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANADY, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur.
APPENDIX
RULE 1.442. PROPOSALS FOR SETTLEMENT
(a)-(e) [No Change]
(f) Acceptance and Rejection.
(1) A proposal shall be deemed rejected unless accepted by delivery of a written notice of acceptance within 30 days after service of the proposal. The provisions of rule 1.090(e)Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.514(b) do not apply to this subdivision. No oral communications shall constitute an acceptance, rejection, or counteroffer under the provisions of this rule.
(2) [No Change]
(g)-(j) [No Change]
Committee Notes
1996 Amendment — 2012 Amendment. [No Change]
2013 Amendment. Subdivision (f)(1) was amended to reflect the relocation of the rule regarding additional time after service by mail or e-mail from rule 1.090(e) to Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.514(b).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration, 95 So. 3d 96 (Fla. 2012)