49 Fla. L. Weekly D1045a LATRICE PLA, Appellant, v. ASHLEY RIERSON, et al., Appellees. 3rd District. Case Nos. 3D23-0088 & 3D23-1712. L.T. Case No. 11-978-P. May 15, 2024. Appeals from the Circuit Court for Monroe County, James M. Barton, II, and Luis Garcia, Judges. Counsel: Boyd Richards Parker Colonnelli, PL, and John H. Richards (Fort Read More »
Articles
Attorney’s fees — Proposal for settlement — Validity — Joint offer — Dispute between homeowners and professional design company — Validity of PFS — Trial court erred in refusing to award attorney’s fees to prevailing homeowners on ground that PFS constituted a joint proposal for settlement and required proper apportionment under rule 1.442(c)(3) — Apportionment was not required because of the unified, single nature of homeowners’ claim for damages
49 Fla. L. Weekly D1025b NADJA MACKENSEN and WOLFGANG MACKENSEN, Appellants, v. TRACE ELEMENTS, INC., Appellee. 4th District. Case No. 4D2023-1707. May 15, 2024. Appeal from the County Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Indian River County; Robyn E. Stone, Judge; L.T. Case No. 312022CC000387. Counsel: Michael G. Kissner, Jr. and Savannah J. H. Unruh Read More »
Rules of Civil Procedure — Amendment — Summary judgment — Deadline for filing motion — Conferral prior to filing motions — Adoption of new rule
49 Fla. L. Weekly S138a IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1.510 AND NEW FLORIDA RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1.202. Supreme Court of Florida. Case No. SC2024-0662. May 23, 2024. Original Proceeding — Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. (PER CURIAM.) The Court, on its own motion, amends Florida Rule of Civil Procedure Read More »
Rules of Civil Procedure — Amendment — Case management — Pretrial procedure — Framework for active case management of civil cases with focus on adhering to deadlines — Complex litigation — General provisions governing discovery — Setting action for trial — Motions to continue trial
49 Fla. L. Weekly S137a IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. Supreme Court of Florida. Case No. SC2023-0962. May 23, 2024. Original Proceeding — Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Counsel: Judson Lee Cohen, Chair, Civil Procedure Rules Committee, Miami Lakes, Landis V. Curry III, Past Chair, Civil Procedure Rules Committee, Tampa, Joshua Read More »
Attorney’s fees — Prevailing party — Significant issues — Net judgment rule — Proposal for settlement — Joint proposal — Apportionment — Subcontractor’s action against contractor and its surety and project owner and its surety seeking damages for breach of contract, seeking to enforce liens against payment and transfer bonds, and alleging alternative quantum meruit claims against contractor and project owner — Successor judge erred in concluding that subcontractor was prevailing party in litigation because it recovered a money judgment — Significant issues in litigation concerned whether subcontracts were enforceable, and thus whether project owner could apply cross-default provisions to offset its damages against any amounts recovered by subcontractor; whether subcontractor was properly defaulted on one of the subcontracts at issue, and thus whether damages could be assessed against subcontractor for value of stairs constructed by replacement subcontractor; the reasonable value of the stairs; and whether subcontractor properly perfected its claims against transfer and payment bonds — Successor judge’s conclusion that defendants were unsuccessful in entirely avoiding payment to subcontractor ignored fact that defendants defeated most of subcontractor’s damages claims — Successor judge’s conclusion that enforceability of subcontracts was not a significant issue because that issue did not determine “the overall outcome of this action, nor the amount of damages the Court awarded” was contrary to predecessor trial judge’s finding in its merits judgment that “the primary dispute is over which contract controls” — Moreover, enforceability of subcontracts, and in turn the cross-default provisions, significantly impacted amounts ultimately recovered by subcontractor — Claims against bond — Section 713.29 governs award of attorney’s fees in action to enforce claim against bond, and significant issues test applies for purposes of determining prevailing party status — Sureties who successfully resisted enforcement of subcontractor’s lien against bonds prevailed on the only claims asserted against them and were not otherwise found liable to subcontractor for damages — Accordingly, successor judge erred in denying sureties attorney’s fees — Proposal for settlement — All defendants were entitled to award of attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to section 768.79 where amount awarded to subcontractor was at least 25% less than total proposal amount — Defendants were not required to apportion their offer under circumstances where subcontractor sought the same indistinguishable amount of damages from each defendant
49 Fla. L. Weekly D1028a LEMARTEC CORPORATION, et al., Appellants, v. EAST COAST METAL STRUCTURES CORP., Appellee. 4th District. Case No. 4D2023-0601. May 15, 2024. Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Scott R. Kerner, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2017-CA-010645-XXXX-MB. Counsel: Joy Spillis Lundeen, Felix X. Rodriguez, and Kelly Read More »