MOLLY A. BRUNSON
v.
ADRIENNE ASHLEY, IND. AND CATHY ASHLEY LANE, 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.
A proposal for settlement is not invalid merely because it fails to address punitive damages when the plaintiff did not seek punitive damages in the complaint.
[1] A proposal for settlement need not address punitive damages when punitive damages have not been pled in the complaint, and failure to include such a statement does not re…
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 intelligence“failure to include a statement that the proposal for settlement did not include punitive damages did not make the proposal invalid where the plaintiff did not seek punitive damages in the complaint”
Court's application of Aguado v. Miller standard to the facts
Molly Brunson was a defendant in a lawsuit brought by Adrienne Ashley and Cathy Ashley Lane. The trial court denied Brunson's motion to tax attorney's…
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 Attorney'S Fees Recovery cases and more on FLexlaw
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
Nos. 1D16-4972 1D17-3532 _____________________________
MOLLY A. BRUNSON,
Appellant,
v.
ADRIENNE ASHLEY, individually and CATHY ASHLEY LANE, her parent and natural guardian during her minority,
Appellees. _____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County. John T. Brown, Judge.
May 2, 2019
PER CURIAM.
The trial court ordered that defendant Molly Brunson was not entitled to attorney’s fees and costs because her proposals for settlement were invalid as they failed to address punitive damages, even though punitive damages were not pled by the plaintiffs, Ashley and Lane. This was error under Aguado v. Miller, 219 So. 3d 216, 217-18 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (finding that failure to include a statement that the proposal for settlement did not include punitive damages did not make the proposal invalid where the plaintiff did not seek punitive damages in the complaint). We, CORRECTED PAGES: pg 1 & 2
CORRECTION IS UNDERLINED IN
RED
MAILED: May 3, 2019 BY: KMS
2
therefore, reverse the trial court’s order denying Brunson’s motion to tax attorney’s fees and costs and remand for a determination of the proper award. We also reverse the trial court’s final judgment in favor of Ashley and Lane, and remand to the trial court for determination of recoverable taxable costs in favor of Brunson. As to the cross-appeal, we affirm.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for further proceedings. B.L. THOMAS, C.J., and MAKAR and WINSOR, JJ., concur.
_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________
Rhonda B. Boggess of Taylor, Day, Grimm & Boyd, Jacksonville, and James A. McGhee of Kirkland McGhee & Gann, P.A., Pensacola, for Appellant.
Charles F. Beall, Jr., of Moore, Hill & Westmoreland, P.A., Pensacola, and David A. Simpson and Jonathan D. Simpson of Simpson Law Firm, Fort Walton Beach, for Appellees.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Smit v. State, 219 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)
- Aguado v. Miller, 219 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)