Eagleman v. Eagleman
| Decision Date | 22 May 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-2685,94-2685 |
| Citation | 673 So.2d 946 |
| Parties | 21 Fla. L. Weekly D1192 Pamela EAGLEMAN, Appellant, v. Atilla EAGLEMAN, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Brian D. Gurainick of David G. Eaton, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Leonard I. Singer of Renick, Singer & Kamber, Lake Worth, for appellee.
This is an appeal of a post-judgment final order denying attorney's fees and costs to appellant/former wife, Pamela Eagleman (defendant), pursuant to section 768.79, Florida Statutes, 1993, commonly referred to as the "Offer of Judgment" statute. We affirm because we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's finding that the offer of judgment was not made in good faith.
This case originated from a criminal charge of battery filed, or caused to be filed, against appellee, Atilla Eagleman (plaintiff), by defendant, his former wife, who alleged that he had stepped on her foot. Following a jury verdict of "not guilty," plaintiff filed this malicious prosecution action. He sought substantial actual damages for time spent away from his medical practice.
Simultaneously with her answer, and prior to any discovery to determine the validity of appellee's damage claim, defendant filed an offer of judgment for $100, which plaintiff did not accept. Following a three-day trial, the trial court declared a mistrial after the jury was deadlocked following seven hours of deliberations. The parties agreed that the jury was deadlocked, three in favor of plaintiff and three in favor of defendant. Subsequently plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his case with prejudice and defendant filed the motion for attorney's fees based on her $100 offer of judgment.
Section 768.79, Florida Statutes (1993), provides in pertinent part as follows:
(1) In any civil action for damages filed in the courts of this state, if a defendant files an offer of judgment which is not accepted by the plaintiff within 30 days, the defendant shall be entitled to recover reasonable costs and attorney's fees incurred by him ... if the judgment is one of no liability or the judgment obtained by the plaintiff is at least 25 percent less than such offer....
....
(7)(a) If a party is entitled to costs and fees pursuant to the provisions of this section, the court may, in its discretion, determine that an offer was not made in good faith. In such case, the court may disallow an award of costs and attorney's fees.
This statute was interpreted by this court in Schmidt v. Fortner, 629 So.2d 1036, 1040 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), to mean "that the legislature has created a mandatory right to attorney's fees, if the statutory prerequisites have been met." Once the statutory prerequisites have been met, the only discretion afforded the trial court by section (7)(a) is the authority to disallow the attorney fee award when an offer is not made in "good faith." Id. at 1041. See also Dvorak v. TGI Friday's, Inc., 639 So.2d 58 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), approved, 663 So.2d 606 (Fla.1995).
The spirit of the offer of judgment statute is to encourage litigants to resolve cases early to avoid incurring substantial amounts of court costs and attorney's fees. See Schmidt, 629 So.2d at 1039. It serves as a penalty for parties who fail to act reasonably and in good faith in settling lawsuits. See Goode v. Udhwani, 648 So.2d 247, 248 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).
Explaining the good faith requirement further, this court stated in Schmidt:
We do not understand the good faith requirement of section 768.79(7)(a), however to demand that an offeror necessarily possess, at the time he makes an offer or demand under the statute, the kind or quantum of evidence needed to support a judgment. The obligation of good faith merely insists that the offeror have some reasonable foundation on which to base the offer.
Based on these principles, we do not find that the trial court abused its discretion. The trial judge, who presided over the trial, made...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Talbott v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc.
...offer of judgment statute penalizes parties who "fail to act reasonably and in good faith in settling lawsuits." Eagleman v. Eagleman, 673 So.2d 946, 947 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Consumers should not be exempt from this penalty if they fail to act reasonably and in good faith simply because the......
-
BDO Seidman v. British Car Auctions, Inc.
...in part). The statute penalizes parties who "fail to act reasonably and in good faith in settling lawsuits." Eagleman v. Eagleman, 673 So.2d 946, 947 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); accord Goode v. Udhwani, 648 So.2d 247, 248 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). Early settlement of a case frees court time for the man......
-
Pickett v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
...relationship to damages and which are not founded upon a reasonable and realistic assessment of liability.” Eagleman v. Eagleman, 673 So.2d 946, 948 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). However, “nominal offers of judgment are not alone determinative of bad faith.” Fox v. McCaw Cellular Commc'ns of Fla., I......
-
McMahan v. Toto
...as a penalty designed to encourage litigants to act reasonably and in good faith in settling lawsuits. See, e.g., Eagleman v. Eagleman, 673 So.2d 946, 947 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Goode v. Udhwani, 648 So.2d 247, 248 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). That description does not change the fact that § 768.79 p......
-
Statutory offers of settlement in Florida practice: uses, problems, and solutions.
...in the trial court's judgment. The highwater mark of judicial hostility to nominal offers from defendants was Eagleman v. Eagleman, 673 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1996) (Pariente, J.) ($100 offer held void; "courts should view with considerable skepticism nominal offers which bear no relat......
-
Proposals for settlement: more traps for the unwary.
...1116 (Fla. 5th D.C.A. 1999); Flight Express, Inc. v. Robinson, 736 So. 2d 796, 797 n.1 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1999). (8) Eagleman v. Eagleman, 673 So. 2d 946, 947 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1996). (9) Unicare Health Facilities, Inc. v. Mort, 553 So. 2d 159, 161 (Fla. 1989). (10) Id. at 161 (citing Ahmed v. ......
-
A guide to the 1997 amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.
...does not contain a definition. Without such a definition of "good faith," counsel must look to the case law. Eagleman v. Eagleman, 673 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), de parted from prior cases interpreting the statute. Eagleman is a case emanating from a criminal battery charge filed again......
-
"Reasonable and realistic" assessments: nominal offers of judgment in Florida after Eagleman v. Eagleman.
...in which litigators should be making offers of judgment pursuant to F.S. [sections] 768.79 (1995). This opinion, Eagleman v. Eagleman, 673 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), dramatically departs from existing case law interpreting F.S. [sections] 768.79, particularly the "good faith" provision......