Lennar Corp. v. Muskat
| Decision Date | 28 January 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 90-1476,90-1476 |
| Citation | 595 So.2d 968 |
| Parties | 17 Fla. L. Weekly D351 LENNAR CORPORATION, et al., Appellants, v. Miriam MUSKAT, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Walton Lantaff Schroeder & Carson and G. Bart Billbrough, Miami, for appellants.
Greenfield & Duval and Louis C. Arslanian, Winter Park, for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and FERGUSON and GODERICH, JJ.
After the appellants-defendants Lennar Corporation and Lennar Homes, Inc. made, and the plaintiff-appellee, Miriam Muskat, rejected an offer of settlement pursuant to section 45.061, Florida Statutes (1987), the jury returned a verdict for Lennar and Muskat's appeal from the adverse judgment was dismissed for failure to prosecute. See Muskat v. Lennar, 582 So.2d 629 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (table). Supported by a sworn motion concerning the manner in which the amount of the settlement offer was determined, 1 Lennar moved for sanctions under sections 45.061(2), (3). Although Muskat made no evidentiary showing to rebut the presumption of unreasonable rejection created by section 45.061(2)(b), 2 the trial judge denied the motion without explanation. 3 We reverse.
As we have today in Collection Chevrolet, Inc. v. Value Rent-A-Car, Inc., 595 So.2d 98 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), we hold both that section 45.061 is constitutional, Leapai v. Milton, 595 So.2d 12 (Fla.1992), and that it applies when judgment is entered for the defendant. On the latter issue, we again certify conflict with Timmons v. Combs, 579 So.2d 840 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), review granted, 587 So.2d 470 (Fla.1991) and Westover v. Allstate Ins. Co., 581 So.2d 988 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). See Leapai v. Milton, 595 So.2d at 14 ().
On the merits, we conclude that the presumption of unreasonable rejection created under these circumstances was not rebutted as a matter of law, see Gross v. Albertson's, Inc., 591 So.2d 311 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), and that the trial judge therefore erred in failing to grant the motion for sanctions. The cause is remanded solely for the purpose of determining the amount to be assessed under section 45.061(3).
Reversed.
1 The underlying claim was for a $163,000 brokerage commission which Lennar knew--and the jury obviously agreed (as do we)--was totally fraudulent. The offer of $2,000 represented an amount which Lennar appropriately considered would permit Muskat to recover her costs and reasonable expenses, without the necessity of incurring further ones and avoiding the subsequent imposition of costs against her. In our judgment, unlike the honestly disputed claim which was involved in Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Elbert, 590 So.2d 15 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), Lennar's offer in these circumstances, at least prima facie, was a reasonable one within the meaning of section 45.061(2).
2 45.061 Offers of settlement--
(b) An offer shall be presumed to have been unreasonably rejected by a defendant if the judgment entered is at least 25 percent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pennsylvania Lumbermens Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sunrise Club, Inc.
...556 So.2d 1170 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); see also Peoples Gas Sys. v. Acme Gas Corp., 689 So.2d 292 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Lennar Corp. v. Muskat, 595 So.2d 968, 968 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 606 So.2d 1165 (Fla.1992). Since the other prerequisites of recovery under the statute are admitted......
-
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY v. Weinstein
...Marko, 695 So.2d 874 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Peoples Gas Sys., Inc. v. Acme Gas Corp., 689 So.2d 292 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Lennar Corp. v. Muskat, 595 So.2d 968 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), review denied, 606 So.2d 1165 In respectively holding and arguing otherwise, the trial court and the appellee, relyi......
-
Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Thompson, 93-03704
...offers. See Schmidt; Goodpaster v. Evans, 570 So.2d 354 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), rev. denied, 581 So.2d 164 (Fla.1991); Lennar Corp. v. Muskat, 595 So.2d 968 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), rev. denied, 606 So.2d 1165 (Fla.1992); Gross v. Albertson's, Inc., 591 So.2d 311 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). We decline to h......
-
O'Neil v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
...of "unreasonable rejection", and one factor for the trial court to consider is the amount of the offer. See Lennar Corp. v. Muskat, 595 So.2d 968 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Gross, 591 So.2d 311. See also Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.442(h); Sec. 90.301, Fla.Stat. (1987). Express findings supporting the "unreaso......