Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

  • Bloglovin
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • Home
  • Locations
    • Where We Practice in Florida
    • Where We Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Bruce D. Burk
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Steven A. Ochsner
    • Alexis C. Upton
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

November 14, 2014 by admin

Offer of Judgment / Proposal for Settlement — Attorneys’ Fees not recoverable for a claim voluntarily dismissed without prejudice prior to determination of liability

39 Fla. L. Weekly D2339a


Attorney’s fees — Proposal for settlement — Error to award fees to
defendant pursuant to proposal for settlement for count which had been
voluntarily dismissed before any determination of liability had been reached

SCHERER CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING OF CENTRAL FLORIDA, LLC, Appellant, v.
THE SCOTT PARTNERSHIP ARCHITECTURE, INC., Appellee. 5th District. Case Nos.
5D13-1965 and 5D13-3641. Opinion filed November 7, 2014. Appeal from the Circuit
Court for Orange County, Lisa T. Munyon, Judge. Counsel: William J. McFarlane,
III, and Mark T. Babcock, of McFarlane & Dolan, Coral Springs, for
Appellant. Andrew P. Thompson, Stephen M. Bull, and Jason B. Vrbensky, of Bull
and Associates, P.A., Orlando, for Appellee.
(PER CURIAM.) In this consolidated case, Scherer Construction &
Engineering of Central Florida, LLC (Scherer) appeals both the Final Judgment on
Fees and the separate Final Judgment on Costs. It argues (1) the trial court
erred in awarding attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to a proposal for
settlement filed by the third-party defendant below, appellee The Scott
Partnership Architecture, Inc. (TSPA); and (2) the trial court erred in awarding
TSPA costs as the prevailing party where Scherer had voluntarily dismissed one
of two counts before any determination of liability had been reached. Because
attorney’s fees for the defense of a claim voluntarily dismissed without
prejudice are not recoverable pursuant to section 768.79, Florida Statutes
(2013), we reverse that portion of the Final Judgment on Fees awarding fees
relative to the voluntarily dismissed indemnification count. We affirm the
remainder of the two judgments in all other respects.
Scherer filed a two-count complaint against TSPA as a third-party defendant
alleging counts for contribution and indemnification.1 TSPA filed and served a proposal for settlement on
Scherer. The time expired for acceptance of the proposal for settlement.
Thereafter, the trial court granted a motion for summary judgment filed by TSPA,
concluding that the alleged cause of action for contribution was barred. Scherer
subsequently filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal that effectively dismissed
the remaining claim for indemnification. The dismissal was without prejudice.
Thereafter, the trial court rendered the judgments for fees and costs under
review.
Because the indemnification count was voluntarily dismissed by Scherer
without prejudice, it was improper for the trial court to render judgment
awarding attorney’s fees in favor of TSPA for its defense of the dismissed count
for indemnification. As this court explained in Ormond Beach Associates Ltd.
v. Citation Mortgage, Ltd.
, 835 So. 2d 292, 296-97 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002),
review denied, 847 So. 2d 978 (Fla. 2003):

Our supreme court has ruled that, upon voluntary dismissal of an
action without prejudice, statutory offer of judgment attorney’s fees are not
recoverable. See MX Investments, Inc. v. Crawford, 700 So. 2d 640
(Fla. 1997) (holding that offer of judgment statute does not provide a basis for
an award of attorney fees and costs unless dismissal is with prejudice). Thus,
once the trial court recognized Citation Mortgage’s notice of voluntary
dismissal without prejudice, Ormond Beach lost its right to request recovery of
such fees. To hold otherwise would preclude the filing of a voluntary dismissal
in all cases in which a defendant had filed an offer of judgment.

See also MX Invs., Inc. v. Crawford, 700 So. 2d 640, 642 (Fla.
1997) (“We conclude that section 768.79, Florida Statutes (1991), does not
provide a basis for the award of attorney fees and costs unless a dismissal is
with prejudice.”); Smith v. Loews Miami Beach Hotel Operating Co., Inc.,
35 So. 3d 101 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (holding defendant not entitled to fees under
offer of judgment statute because plaintiff had filed voluntary dismissal
without prejudice, which did not operate as an adjudication on the merits);
Commonwealth Prop. Assocs., Inc. v. SunTrust Bank, Sw. Fla., 835 So. 2d
1175 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (same); Ass’n Emp’rs Ins. Co. v. Am. Excavating &
PSI, Inc.
, 701 So. 2d 110, 110 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (“[N]o entitlement to
attorney’s fees arises under section 768.79 unless the case is dismissed with
prejudice
.”), review denied, 717 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 1998).2 Although the cited case law discusses the impact of
the voluntary dismissal of an entire case, the analysis is equally applicable
where, as here, the voluntary dismissal was as to one of two claims.
Accordingly, we reverse that part of the final judgment awarding attorney’s
fees against Scherer for TSPA’s defense of the voluntarily dismissed claim for
indemnification. We affirm that part of the judgment awarding fees for the
defense of the contribution count, and we affirm the judgment awarding costs.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED. (SAWAYA, ORFINGER, and BERGER,
JJ., concur.)
__________________
1There is no evidence in the record of any
contract between Scherer and TPSA that would support an award of fees.
2The voluntary dismissal of the indemnity
claim deprived the court of jurisdiction to enter Final Judgment on the
indemnity claim. Randle-E. Ambulance Serv., Inc. v. Vasta, 360 So. 2d 68,
69 (Fla. 1978) (“The right to dismiss one’s own lawsuit during the course of
trial is guaranteed by Rule 1.420(a), endowing a plaintiff with unilateral
authority to block action favorable to a defendant which the trial judge might
be disposed to approve. The effect is to remove completely from the court’s
consideration the power to enter an order, equivalent in all respects to a
deprivation of ‘jurisdiction’.”). Accordingly, the entry of the Final Judgment,
insofar as it could be read as entry of judgment on the indemnity claim, was a
nullity and cannot be used to support any argument that TSPA prevailed on the
merits of the indemnity claim for purposes of section 768.79.

* * *

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Blog Archives

  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013

Footer

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

Copyright © 2021 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982