Watkins v. Corbett, Corbett, and Britannia Building Consultants of Pasco County, Inc.

Summary

The Florida Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of Smith L. Watkins's motion for attorney's fees based on a joint proposal for settlement. The court held that the proposal was invalid under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442 because it failed to apportion the settlement amount and terms between Richard and Jennifer Corbett. The court rejected an exception based on the Corbetts' ownership of the property as tenants by the entireties and disagreed with contrary reasoning from the Fourth District in Mackensen v. Trace Elements, Inc.

Holdings

1. A joint proposal for settlement must state the amount and terms attributable to each party under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442(c)(3). Failure to apportion the proposal renders it invalid for purposes of recovering attorney's fees under section 768.79.
2. Tenants by the entireties are not exempt from the requirement to apportion a joint proposal for settlement between the individual parties.
3. The exception recognized in Kuhajda for omitting whether attorney's fees are included does not apply to a proposal that fails to apportion the amount and terms among joint parties.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a joint proposal for settlement must apportion the amount and terms attributable to each offeree under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442(c)(3).
2. Whether tenants by the entireties are exempt from the apportionment requirement when they bring a claim involving jointly owned real property.
3. Whether the limited exception recognized in Kuhajda for proposals omitting whether attorney's fees are included eliminates the separate apportionment requirement.

Disposition

affirmed