Attorney’s fees — Proposal for settlement — Trial court’s determination that defendant’s proposal for settlement was invalid because certificate of service accompanying it was not signed in compliance with rule 2.515 was incorrect, as signature is not expressly required by applicable statute and rules — Even if signing requirement of rule 2.515 applied generally to rule 1.442, that requirement would nevertheless not apply to initial service of proposals for settlement on opposing party because those proposals are not “documents” as defined
43 Fla. L. Weekly D1852a
The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney.
opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index