THREE LIONS CONSTRUCTION, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
THE NAMM GROUP, INC., ETC., 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 court held that a motion for extension of time to accept a settlement proposal is ineffective if the offering party does not agree to the extension and the moving party does not obtain a hearing on the motion before the acceptance period expires.
[1] A motion for extension of time to accept a proposal for settlement is ineffective to toll the time for acceptance if the offeror does not agree to the extension and the m…
[2] A party is entitled to attorney's fees based on a proper proposal for settlement if the opposing party fails to accept it within the prescribed time.
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 intelligenceThree Lions served a proposal for settlement on Namm. Namm filed a motion for an extension of time to accept, but Three Lions did not agree, and Namm …
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 Motion For Extension Of Time cases and more on FLexlaw
= Appellant Three Lions Construction, Inc. (“Three Lions”) challenges the denial of its motion for attorney’s fees, based on a proposal for settlement, after dismissal of the underlying action by Appellee The Namm Group, Inc. (“Namm”). We reverse.
During the pendency of the underlying litigation, Three Lions served on Namm a Proposal for Settlement pursuant to Section 768.69, Florida Statutes (2012) and Rule 1.442, of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure on Namm. Prior to the expiration of the time within which it could properly accept the Proposal, Namm filed a Motion for Extension of Time to Accept Settlement Proposal. However, Three Lions did not agree to the extension of time and Namm took no steps to have the motion heard.
More than 90 days later, Namm served a Notice of Acceptance of the Settlement Proposal. After being notified by Three Lions that the purported acceptance was untimely, Namm filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. Within 30 days after the voluntary dismissal, Three Lions filed a Motion for Fees and Costs, pursuant to the Proposal for Settlement. Following other proceedings not relevant here, and a hearing, the trial court , denied the motion without explanation.
We reverse because Namm’s Motion for Extension of Time to Accept Settlement *1120Proposal was ineffective to toll the time for acceptance of the proposal, where Three Lions did not agree to the extension and Namm did not obtain a hearing on the motion prior to the expiration of the time for acceptance of the Proposal. Donohoe v. Starmed Staffing, Inc., 743 So.2d 623 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); 5 Fla. Prac„ Civil Procedure § 11:5 n. 22. Because Three Lions’ Proposal for Settlement was otherwise proper, it was entitled to attorney’s fees based on that Proposal. We reject Appellee’s claim that the Proposal did not satisfy the requirements of Diamond Aircraft Industries, Inc. v. Horowitch, 107 So.3d 362, 377 (Fla.2013).
Reversed and remanded for determination of the amount of Three Lions’ fees by the trial court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Koppel v. Ochoa, 243 So. 3d 886 (Fla. 2018)…ll the time to accept the offer and that Goldy was distinguishable because there the offer had been withdrawn. Id. The Third District Court of Appeal came to a similar conclusion more recently in Three Lions Construction, Inc. v. Namm Group, Inc. , 183 So. 3d 1119 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015). There, the district court ruled that a corporation's motion for extension of time to accept a proposal for settlement was ineffective to toll the time for acceptance where the opposing party did not agree to the extension and the…
-
Ochoa v. Koppel, 197 So. 3d 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…of time to set a hearing or insist on a ruling, whichever may be required, and not to create an automatic tolling rule that springs into effect upon the filing of a motion for enlargement. See, e.g., Three Lions Constr., Inc. v. The Namm Grp., Inc., 183 So. 3d 1119, 1119-20 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (rejecting the argument that a motion to enlarge time under rule 1.090(b) tolled the time to respond to a proposal for settlement where the party seeking the enlargement “did not obtain a hearing on the motion prior to th…
-
Geico v. Andys Auto Body Paint (15th Cir. Ct. App. Div. 2020)
Authorities Cited
- Diamond Aircraft Indus., Inc. v. Horowitch, 107 So. 3d 362 (Fla. 2013)
- Donohoe v. Starmed Staffing, Inc., 743 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)