Special's Trading Co. v. International Consumer Corp., 95-1232

Decision Date18 September 1996
Docket NumberNo. 95-1232,95-1232
Citation679 So.2d 369
Parties21 Fla. L. Weekly D2055 SPECIAL'S TRADING COMPANY, a Foreign Corporation, Appellant, v. INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER CORP., a Florida Corporation, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Thomas D. Daiello of Marchbanks, Daiello & Leider, P.A., Boca Raton, for appellant.

W. Jeffrey Barnes of J. Barnes & Associates, P.A., Boca Raton, for appellee.

FARMER, Judge.

In this case, the trial judge was presented with an issue previously decided by the second district court of appeal but concluded that he would not follow it. In reversing, we write to emphasize the rule that all trial judges in Florida are bound by stare decisis to follow any district court of appeal decision on point when their own district has not decided the issue.

Plaintiff sued defendant for breach of contract. During the progress of the case, defendant served an offer of judgment under section 768.79, Florida Statutes (1995). At a later hearing on defendant's motion for sanctions, plaintiff announced a voluntary dismissal of its case without prejudice. Because plaintiff did not accept the offer of judgment, defendant timely moved for an award of attorney's fees under section 768.79. At the hearing on the motion for fees, defendant argued that Tampa Letter Carriers v. Mack, 649 So.2d 890 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), was dispositive of the issue of entitlement. The trial court declined to follow Tampa Letter Carriers, however, and denied the motion. This appeal timely followed.

In Pardo v. State, 596 So.2d 665 (Fla.1992), the supreme court held:

"Initially, we note that the district court erred in commenting that decisions of other district courts of appeal were not binding on the trial court. This Court has stated that '[t]he decisions of the district courts of appeal represent the law of Florida unless and until they are overruled by this Court.' Stanfill v. State, 384 So.2d 141, 143 (Fla.1980). Thus, in the absence of interdistrict conflict, district court decisions bind all Florida trial courts. Weiman v. McHaffie, 470 So.2d 682, 684 (Fla.1985) . The purpose of this rule was explained by the Fourth District in State v. Hayes:

'The District Courts of Appeal are required to follow Supreme Court decisions. As an adjunct to this rule it is logical and necessary in order to preserve stability and predictability in the law that, likewise, trial courts be required to follow the holdings of higher courts--District Courts of Appeal. The proper hierarchy of decisional holdings would demand that in the event the only case on point on a district level is from a district other than the one in which the trial court is located, the trial court be required to follow that decision. Alternatively, if the district court of the district in which the trial court is located has decided the issue, the trial court is bound to follow it. Contrarily, as between District Courts of Appeal, a sister district's opinion is merely persuasive.'

333 So.2d 51, 53 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976) (footnote and citations omitted). [f.o.] Consequently, the trial court in this case was bound by the Fifth District's decision in Kopko."

596 So.2d at 666-7.

Pardo applies in this case because the decision of the second district in Tampa Letter Carriers clearly addresses the identical issue confronted by the trial court in this case. A trial judge in Florida is not free to refuse to follow applicable precedent from another district merely because the trial judge disagrees with the holding of that district court. From that standpoint alone, the decision below is in error and must be reversed.

To eliminate unnecessary, further appeals in this case, however, we proceed to address the substantive issue, i.e. whether a party can avoid liability under section 768.79 for offer of judgment attorney's fees by simply dismissing his claim before suffering an adverse adjudication. While concededly the act of filing a voluntary dismissal would vindicate the purpose of the act to encourage the early disposition of civil actions for damages, just as a formal settlement through the offer would do, we do not construe statutes on their purposes but on their text. Miele v. Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc., 656 So.2d 470 (Fla.1995) (legislative intent must be determined primarily from statutory text). It is thus to the text of the statute that we refer to answer the question here.

Subsection (6) of section 768.79, Florida Statutes (1995), provides in part as follows:

"(6) Upon motion made by the offeror within 30 days...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • MX Investments, Inc. v. Crawford, I-75
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • September 4, 1997
    ...certified conflict with Tampa Letter Carriers, Inc. v. Mack, 649 So.2d 890 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), and Special's Trading Co. v. International Consumer Corp., 679 So.2d 369 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. William and Joan Crawford (the Crawfords) filed suit aga......
  • MX Investments, Inc. v. Crawford
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • November 13, 1996
    ...attorney fees when a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses his suit, with or without prejudice), and Special's Trading Co. v. International Consumer Corp., 679 So.2d 369 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)(following Tampa Letter Carriers, supra ). We therefore certify conflict with those AFFIRMED. WOLF and BENTO......
  • Perkins v. Wilson
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • August 13, 1997
    ...instead by the construction urged by the Defendant below and the reasoning contained in the cases of Special's Trading Co. v. International Consumer Corp., 679 So.2d 369 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), and Tangerine Bay Co. v. Derby Road Investments, 664 So.2d 1045 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Both opinions gi......
  • Ball v. Arends
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • February 20, 1997
    ...Inc. v. Mack, 649 So.2d 890 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), and of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Special's Trading Co. v. International Consumer Corp., 679 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), on the issue of defendant's entitlement to an award of an attorney's fee pursuant to section 768.79, Flori......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Course and conduct of trial
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Florida Family Law Trial Notebook
    • April 30, 2022
    ...merely because the trial judge disagrees with the holding of that district court. Special’s Trading Co. v. International Consumer Corp ., 679 So.2d 369 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Bane v. Bane In absence of interdistrict conflict, the trial court must follow binding precedent of district court of ......
  • Happiness is being a grandparent? The evolution of grandparent visitation in Florida.
    • United States
    • Florida Bar Journal Vol. 71 No. 10, November - November 1997
    • November 1, 1997
    ...of appeal decision on point when their own district has not decided the issue, Special's Rading Co. v. International Consumer Corp., 679 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). If a mandate issues in Fitts, there will be a conflict with Von Eiff and Sketo V. Brown, as that case found a "sufficientl......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT