Gladding v. Daher
Docket Number | 2D21-1541 |
Decision Date | 24 May 2023 |
Parties | NICHOLAS C. GLADDING and DANIELLE GLADDING, Appellants, v. CAROLINE D. DAHER, DAVID P. DESROSIERS, JOANN DESROSIERS, JOHN C. DESROSIERS, JEANNE D. HILL, and JACQUELINE D. RUSSELL, Appellees. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sarasota County; Lee E. Haworth Senior Judge.
David A. Wallace, Morgan R. Bentley, and Amanda R. Kison of Bentley Goodrich Kison, P.A., Sarasota, for Appellants.
Martin Garcia and Josh R. Dell of GarciaDell, P.A., Sarasota, for Appellees Caroline D. Daher, John C. Desrosiers, and David P Desrosiers.
No appearance for remaining Appellees.
Pondering his own mortality, Addie Bundren's father observed that "the reason for living was to get ready to stay dead a long time." William Faulkner, As I Lay Dying (1930). Wilfred Desrosiers, a West Virginia coal mine owner and patriarch of the Desrosiers family, ignored this admonition. So, after he died intestate in 1997, family peace collapsed for his lack of planning. The family contrived a plan to distribute Mr. Desrosiers' considerable estate in a manner designed to minimize federal estate taxes. However after years of family infighting and litigation, the tax avoidance plan proved a disappointment.
This appeal presents a labyrinthine factual and procedural history. Fortunately, we need only review a discrete matter: the trial court's order denying Danielle and Nicholas C. Gladding's motion for attorney's fees. We have jurisdiction. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A). We agree with the trial court; the Gladdings were not entitled to fees under section 768.79, Florida Statutes (2021).[1] Thus, we affirm.
In early 2021, decades after Mr. Desrosiers' death, the trial court found the family's tax avoidance plan unenforceable. The trial court entered a final judgment in favor of the family matriarch, Joann Desrosiers, one of her adult children, Danielle Gladding (nee Desrosiers), and Danielle's husband, Nicholas C. Gladding. We affirmed the judgment on appeal. Desrosiers v. Hill, 345 So.3d 872, 872 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022) (table decision).
All three filed a motion for attorney's fees, claiming that other family members had rejected several offers of judgment. See § 768.79(1) ().
Critically, Joann,[2] alone, tendered the offers. The trial court concluded that the Gladdings were not entitled to attorney's fees because Joann was the "sole offeror[,] Nicholas and Danielle are not named."
The trial court also rejected Joann's fee request. Shortly before making the offers, Joann "had effectively transferred her entire net worth to . . . Danielle and Nicholas." The trial court explained that Joann "render[ed] herself unable to discharge any of the promised obligations" in her offers. Consequently, the trial court found that Joann's offers were not made in good faith in an earnest effort to settle the claims against her and end the years-long litigation. See § 768.79(7)(a) () ; see also Progressive Select Ins. Co. v. Kagan Jugan &Assocs., 348 So.3d 1168, 1172 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022) .
We review the trial court's fee order de novo. See Diecidue v. Lewis, 223 So.3d 1015, 1018 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (). First, however, we note that the posture of the appeal impacts our evaluation of the Gladdings' position.
The Gladdings timely invoked our appellate jurisdiction. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(b) ().
Joann did not file a notice of appeal. Consequently, she is an appellee. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.020(g)(2) ( ). Joann did not seek realignment as an appellant. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.360(a).
Instead, before filing an initial brief, Joann asked us to correct a "scrivener's error" by filing an amended notice of appeal adding herself as an appellant. We denied her request. See Millar Elevator Serv. Co. v. McGowan, 804 So.2d 1271, 1272-73 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) ( . The Gladdings' briefs offer no compelling reason to reevaluate our prior order.
As for the Gladdings, the trial court denied their fee motion because they made no offer of judgment. See § 768.79(2)(b) (); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442(c)(2)(A) (); cf. Ormond Beach Assocs. v. Citation Mortg., Ltd., 835 So.2d 292, 295 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) () , abrogated on other grounds by Pino v. Bank of N.Y., 121 So.3d 23, 40 (Fla. 2013). Our record supports this finding.
As a result of the parties' respective alignments, the Gladdings find themselves in an unusual predicament, ostensibly on the same side as their trial court foes. Nevertheless, their arguments are but feeble attempts to challenge the trial court's finding that Joann's offers of judgment were not made in good faith. They cannot do so.
"[T]o have standing, a party must demonstrate a direct and articulable interest in the controversy, which will be affected by the outcome of the litigation." Whitburn, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 190 So.3d 1087, 1091 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (quoting Centerstate Bank Cent. Fla., N.A. v. Krause, 87 So.3d 25, 28 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)); Accela, Inc. v. Sarasota County, 901 So.2d 237, 238 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) . The Gladdings have no stake in Joann's offers. The Gladdings made no offers. They do not stand to gain any benefit even if Joann's offers were enforceable. Indeed, the Gladdings lack any legally cognizable interest that could be vindicated by a finding that Joann's offers were made in good faith.[3] Joann, not the Gladdings, is the real party in interest as to the disposition of her fee motion.[4] See Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge No. 20 v. City of Miami, 233 So.3d 1240, 1247 n.5 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) ( .
The Gladdings cannot prevail. We affirm the trial court's attorney's fee order. See Stone v. State, 873 So.2d 628, 630 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial