5979 ALTON ROAD LAND TRUST DATED AUGUST 8, 2020
v.
STAV SOFTWARE, LLC
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.
An offer of judgment does not qualify for attorney's fees under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442(c)(2)(B) unless it expressly states that the proposal resolves all damages that would otherwise be awarded in a final judgment.
[1] An offer of judgment must expressly state that the proposal resolves all damages that would otherwise be awarded in a final judgment to qualify for attorney's fees under…
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“state that the proposal resolves all damages that would otherwise be awarded in a final judgment in the action in which the proposal is served”
Quoting the express requirement of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442(c)(2)(B)
The appellant, 5979 Alton Road Land Trust, made an offer of judgment in its dispute with Stav Software, LLC, and later moved for attorney's fees based…
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 Offer Of Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed September 18, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D23-0761 Lower Tribunal No. 20-18627
________________
5979 Alton Road Land Trust Dated August 8, 2020,
Appellant,
vs.
Stav Software, LLC,
Appellee. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, David C. Miller, Judge. Armstrong Teasdale LLP, and Eleanor T. Barnett and Marlon J. Weiss, for appellant. Omar K. Ibrahem, P.A., and Omar K. Ibrahem, for appellee. Before LOGUE, C.J., and EMAS and MILLER, JJ. LOGUE, C.J.
The appellant appeals the denial of its motion for attorney’s fees based upon an offer of judgment. As the appellee correctly argues, however, while the offer may be construed as accomplishing this end, it does not, as expressly required by the rule, “state that the proposal resolves all damages that would otherwise be awarded in a final judgment in the action in which the proposal is served.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442(c)(2)(B). See Knapp v. Harling,
374 So. 3d 880, 882 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023) (“The problem here for Appellee is that his settlement proposal didn't state that it would resolve ‘all damages’ in the action.”).
Affirmed.