KEYSTONE AIRPARK AUTHORITY
v.
PIPELINE CONTRACTORS, INC., A FLORIDA ETC.
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.
Keystone Airpark Authority's appeal of an attorneys' fees award under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442(c) is affirmed because the release language in Passero Associates' settlement proposal contained sufficient particularity regarding relevant conditions and nonmonetary terms.
A release conditioned upon a settlement proposal satisfies the particularity requirements of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442(c)(2)(C)-(D) when the release language, though broad, does not impermissibly encompass future unrelated causes of action and adequately identifies the parties to be discharged.
[1] A release in a settlement proposal satisfies Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442(c)(2)(C)-(D) particularity requirements when the release language does not encompass un…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKeystone Airpark Authority rejected a settlement proposal from Passero Associates that was conditioned upon a release. Following entry of summary judg…
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
PER CURIAM.
Keystone Airpark Authority appeals the trial court’s award of attorneys’ fees to Passero Associates based on Keystone not accepting Passero’s proposal for settlement and following the entry of a summary judgment in favor of Passero. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442(c). Keystone asserts that the attorneys’ fees award must be reversed because the release upon which Passero’s proposal for settlement was conditioned lacked the required particularity for the “relevant conditions” and “all nonmonetary terms of the proposal.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442(c)(2)(C)-(D).
The release language at issue, while broad and expansive, does not impermissibly encompass “causes of action that may accrue in the future based on unrelated facts and events that have not yet occurred.” See Ambeca, Inc. v. Marina Cove Village Townhome Ass’n, Inc., 880 So. 2d 811, 812 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). Likewise, the release language describing the parties to be discharged is not so expansive that it lacks sufficient particularity to inform Keystone of the affiliated parties who would be governed by the release. See Bd. of Trs. of Fla. Atlantic Univ. v. Bowman, 853 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Accordingly, the order on appeal is
AFFIRMED.
ROBERTS, MAKAR, and BILBREY, JJ., concur.
_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________
James J. Taylor, Jr., and Katelyn J. Taylor of the Taylor Law Firm, P.A., Keystone Heights, for Appellant.
Curtis L. Brown of Wright, Fulford, Moorhead & Brown, P.A., Altamonte Springs, for Appellees.
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- The Bd. OF Trs. OF Fla. Atl. Univ. v. Bowman, 853 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- Ambeca, Inc. v. Marina Cove Vill. Town-Home Ass'n, Inc., 880 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)