MOLLY A. BRUNSON
v.
ADRIENNE ASHLEY, INDIVIDUALLY
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.
Defendant Molly Brunson appealed a trial court order denying her motion for attorney's fees and costs, arguing that her settlement proposals were valid even though they did not address punitive damages. The appellate court reversed, holding that settlement proposals need not address punitive damages when the plaintiffs did not plead punitive damages in their complaint.
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. The trial court's order denying attorney's fees and costs was reversed and remanded for proper calculation of the award.
[1] A settlement proposal does not become invalid for failure to include a statement disclaiming punitive damages when punitive damages were not pled by the plaintiff in the…
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“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”
Court's citation to Aguado v. Miller, 219 So. 3d 216, 217-18 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)
Molly Brunson made proposals for settlement to plaintiffs Ashley and Lane. The trial court rejected these proposals as invalid because they failed to …
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
_____________________________ 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 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.