Camejo v. Smith
| Decision Date | 15 September 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D99-2280.,2D99-2280. |
| Citation | 774 So.2d 28 |
| Parties | Ricardo CAMEJO, Appellant, v. Jewell A. SMITH and Hillsborough Transit Authority, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Charles Tyler Cone of Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal and Banker, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.
John W. Boult of Barr, Murman, Tonelli, Herzfeld & Rubin, Tampa, for Appellees.
Ricardo Camejo appeals an order denying his motion for attorney's fees and costs. Camejo's motion for fees and costs was based upon a $100 offer of judgment he served upon the Hillsborough Transit Authority (Hartline) pursuant to section 768.79, Florida Statutes (1997), and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442. We reverse because the trial court made no finding that the offer was not made in good faith and there is no evidence in the record to support such a finding. Moreover, there is evidence to support a conclusion that there was a reasonable foundation for Camejo's belief that he had no liability.
Camejo's offer of judgment arose from a personal injury action Jewell Smith filed against Hartline and Camejo. In her complaint, Smith alleged that she suffered injuries as a result of an accident involving Camejo's vehicle and a Hartline bus on which she was a passenger. Hartline answered Smith's complaint and asserted cross-claims against Camejo. In the cross-claim, Hartline sought contribution for Smith's claims and recovery for damages to the bus. Camejo denied liability. Depositions were taken of Smith, Camejo, the driver of the bus involved in the accident and Camejo's wife. The first three deponents testified that the bus turned left in front of Camejo's oncoming car. Camejo's wife confirmed that Camejo had given her the same account of the accident. Thereafter, Camejo served on Hartline an offer of judgment for $100. Hartline never accepted Camejo's offer, and the case proceeded to jury trial on the issue of liability. The jury returned a verdict of no liability, finding that neither Camejo nor Hartline negligently caused the accident. The trial court entered judgments in favor of Hartline and Camejo.
Following the entry of the judgments, Camejo filed a motion to tax attorney's fees and costs against Hartline pursuant to his offer of judgment. At the hearing on his motion, counsel for Camejo argued to the trial court that the offer was made in good faith. In support of that argument counsel represented to the trial court that the offer was based on counsel's assessment of the depositions of the principal fact witnesses that Camejo was not liable for the accident. Hartline essentially argued that the nominal offer was not made in good faith. The trial court denied Camejo's motion without stating the grounds for its ruling.
Pursuant to section 768.79(1), a defendant is entitled to an award of reasonable costs and attorney's fees if the defendant's offer of judgment is not accepted and if the judgment ultimately obtained is one of no liability or is at least twenty-five percent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
TIARA CONDOMINIUM ASS'N, INC. v. MARSH USA, INC.
...Beach v. Smith, 740 So.2d 25, 27 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (a nominal offer is not suspect merely because it is nominal); Camejo v. Smith, 774 So.2d 28, 29 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) ($100 offer of judgment made in good faith). Moreover, the lack of discovery does not establish bad faith given the "almos......
-
Jes Properties, Inc. v. Usa Equestrian, Inc., 8:02CV1585T24MAP.
...Inc., 745 So.2d 330, 332-33 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). The burden is on the offeree to prove the absence of good faith. See Camejo v. Smith, 774 So.2d 28 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)(citing Donohoe v. Starmed Staffing, Inc., 743 So.2d 623, 624 (Fla. 2d DCA With respect to the Burton Defendants, their offer......
-
Gawtrey v. Hayward
...entered was one of no liability. Thus Ms. Gawtrey was entitled to an award of fees under section 768.79(1). See Camejo v. Smith, 774 So.2d 28, 29 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Donohoe v. Starmed Staffing, Inc., 743 So.2d 623, 624 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). But once Ms. Gawtrey established her entitlement to......
-
Muegge v. Heritage Oaks Gulf & Country Club, Inc.
...of fees and costs. Fla. Stat. § 768.79(7)(a). "The burden is on the offeree to prove the absence of good faith." See Camejo v. Smith, 774 So. 2d 28, 29 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)(citation omitted); see also Schmidt v. Fortner, 629 So. 2d 1036, 1041 n.6 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). In determining whether th......
-
Statutory offers of settlement in Florida practice: uses, problems, and solutions.
...Lieff v. Sandoval, 726 So. 2d 335, 336 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1999) (motive to trigger right to fees is not "bad faith"); Camejo v. Smith, 774 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 2000) ($100 offer in good faith when there was a reasonable basis for defendant to believe he had no liability); Hartley v. Guetz......