BORDEN DAIRY COMPANY OF ALABAMA, LLC, AND MAJOR O. GREENROCK, APPELLANTS,
v.
SUSANNE L. KUHAJDA, 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.
Borden Dairy Company and Major Greenrock appealed a judgment awarding Susanne Kuhajda damages on her negligence claim, challenging the trial court's award of attorneys' fees and costs under Florida's offer of judgment statute. The First District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that Kuhajda's offers of judgment failed to strictly comply with Rule 1.442(c)(2)(F) because they did not explicitly state whether attorneys' fees were included, regardless of whether fees were sought in the complaint.
The court held that strict compliance with Rule 1.442(c)(2)(F) is required, and Kuhajda's offers failed to strictly comply because they did not state whether attorneys' fees were included. This requirement applies regardless of whether attorneys' fees were actually sought in the complaint. Therefore, the trial court erred in awarding attorneys' fees and costs.
[1] Offers of judgment under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442 must strictly comply with all requirements, including stating whether attorneys' fees are included and whet…
[2] A failure to strictly comply with the requirements of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442 renders an offer of judgment invalid for the purpose of taxing attorneys' fees…
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“the rule and statute governing offers of judgment must be strictly construed”
Establishes the fundamental principle governing interpretation of offer of judgment rules
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKuhajda sued Borden Dairy and Greenrock for negligence. She served identical offers of judgment proposing settlement for a lump sum that included cost…
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 Strict Compliance cases and more on FLexlaw
Susanne L. Kuhajda (Appellee) prevailed on her negligence claim against Borden Dairy Company of Alabama, LLC, and Major 0. Greenrock (Appellants) and the jury awarded her damages in excess of the amount contained in her offers of judgment to Appellants. Following entry of judgment in her favor, the trial court granted Appellee’s motion to tax attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to section 768.79, Florida Statutes and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442. Because the offers failed to strictly comply with the requirements of rule 1.442, we reverse.
Appellee served Appellants with identical offers of judgment that proposed to settle all claims for one lump sum. The offers specified that they included costs, interest, and all damages or monies recov*243erable under the complaint and by law. Appellants argued that these offers were invalid because they failed to “state whether the proposal includes attorneys’ fees and whether attorneys’ fees are part of the legal claim” as required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442(c)(2)(F). The trial court concluded that the failure to include the attorneys’ fees language did not create an ambiguity in this case because Appellee never sought attorneys’ fees in her complaint, and it granted the motion to tax attorneys’ fees and costs against Appellants.
A trial court’s ruling on a motion to tax attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to the offer of judgment statute is reviewed de novo. Paduru v. Klinkenberg, 157 So.3d 314, 316 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). The supreme court has repeatedly held that the rule and statute governing offers of judgment must be strictly construed. See, e.g., Campbell v. Goldman, 959 So.2d 223, 226-27 (Fla.2007) (requiring strict compliance with section 768.79(2)(a) and reversing a fee award because the offer failed to cite the statute even though the offer did cite rule 1.442); Willis Shaw Express, Inc. v. Hilyer Sod, Inc., 849 So.2d 276, 278-79 (Fla.2003) (requiring strict compliance with rule 1.442(c)(3) which dictates that a “joint proposal shall state the amount and terms attributable to each party”). Here, Appellee failed to strictly comply with rule 1.442(c)(2)(F) when she failed to state in the offers of judgment whether the offers included attorneys’ fees and whether attorneys’ fees were part of the legal claim.
In a case where the plaintiff sought attorney’s fees in the complaint, the supreme court held that an offer of judgment failed to strictly comply with rule 1.442(c)(2)(F) because it did not state that the offer included attorneys’ fees and whether attorneys’ fees were part of the legal claim. Diamond Aircraft Indus., Inc. v. Horow-itch, 107 So.3d 362, 377 (Fla.2013). In light of the fact that “the supreme court has made the test strict compliance, not the absence of ambiguity,” R.J. Reynolds Tobacco v. Ward, 141 So.3d 236, 238 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014), we can see no reason why this holding would not apply equally to a case where attorneys’ fees were not sought in the complaint. See Diamond Aircraft, 107 So.3d at 377 (holding “if the elements of rule 1.442(c)(2) were not mandatory, we would have stated at the beginning of rule 1.442(c)(2) that the proposal ‘may’ contain the requirements listed in that subsection.”). We recognize that this holding conflicts with the Fourth District’s decision in Bennett v. American Learning Systems of Boca Delray, Inc., 857 So.2d 986 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); thus, we certify conflict with that decision.
REVERSED and CONFLICT CERTIFIED.
OSTERHAUS and BILBREY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Susanne L. Kuhajda v. Borden Dairy Co. OF Ala., LLC., 202 So. 3d 391 (Fla. 2016)…at fails to address attorney’s fees is invalid even though no attorney’s fees have been sought in the case. The ease is before the Court for review of the decision of the First District Court of Appeal in Borden Dairy Co. of Alabama, LLC v. Kuhajda, 171 So. 3d 242 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015), which held that such an offer of settlement is invalid. The First District certified that its decision is in direct conflict with the decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Bennett v. American Learning Systems of Boc…
-
Taylor Eng'g v. Dickerson Fla., Inc., 221 So. 3d 719 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…”) filed a post-trial motion for attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to section 768.79(1), Florida Statutes, and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442. The trial court denied the motion on the authority of Borden Dairy Co. of Alabama, LLC v. Kuhajda, 171 So. 3d 242 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (holding that a proposal for settlement must strictly comply with the content requirements of rule 1.442(c)(2) in order to entitle the movant to attorneys’ fees and costs). Taylor appealed. However, while this appeal was pending,…
-
Colvin v. Clements & Ashmore, P.A., 182 So. 3d 924 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)…ELSEY, J., concurs with opinión. I concur in the disposition of tliis case, which is controlled by Diamond Aircraft Industries, Inc. v. Horoipitch, 107 So. 3d 362, 376 (Fla.2013); and by pur prior decisions including Borden Dairy Co. v. Kuhajda, 171 So. 3d 242, 243 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015), rev. granted, Case No. SC15-1682, 2015 WL 8204268’ (Fla. Nov. 30, 2015). The Florida Supreme Court has uniformly required strict compliance with section 768.79 of the Florida Statutes and. Rule 1.442 of the Florida Rules of…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 6 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)
- Diamond Aircraft Indus., Inc. v. Horowitch, 107 So. 3d 362 (Fla. 2013)
- Campbell v. Clivens Goldman, 959 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 2007)
- Bennett v. Am. Learning Sys. OF Boca Delray, Inc., 857 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- R.J. Reynolds Tobacco & Liggett Grp. LLC v. Erskin Donal Ward, 141 So. 3d 236 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)
- Saritha Reddy Paduru and Ravi Anugu v. Klinkenberg, 157 So. 3d 314 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)