349 So.3d 447
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2022Background
- Appellant Chris Thompson, P.A., as assignee of Elmude Cadau, appealed a county court award of attorney’s fees to GEICO under a proposal for settlement.
- GEICO moved on March 10, 2021 for entitlement to fees under a proposal for settlement; Thompson filed no written response before the entitlement hearing.
- At the May 11, 2021 hearing Thompson argued the offer lacked good faith but did not assert noncompliance with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442 or raise Deer Valley Realty.
- The trial court granted GEICO’s motion for entitlement to fees; Thompson then moved for rehearing and reconsideration, for the first time arguing the proposal was defective under Rule 1.442 because it didn’t state whether attorney’s fees were part of the claim.
- The trial court denied rehearing as untimely/waived; the Fourth District affirmed, holding the preservation argument was not timely and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the proposal made in good faith.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation: Was the Rule 1.442 challenge preserved? | Thompson: Proposal defective for failing to state whether fees were part of the claim (relying on Deer Valley). | GEICO: Issue waived — never raised in pre-hearing filings or at entitlement hearing. | Not preserved; motion for rehearing denied as untimely. |
| Good faith of the proposal for settlement | Thompson: Offer was not made in good faith. | GEICO: Offer was made in good faith; entitlement to fees appropriate. | Trial court’s good-faith finding upheld; no abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Deer Valley Realty, Inc. v. SB Hotel Associates LLC, 190 So. 3d 203 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (proposal for settlement may be defective if it fails to state whether attorney’s fees are part of the claim)
- Precision Tune Auto Care, Inc. v. Radcliff, 731 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (trial court has inherent authority to reconsider nonfinal orders)
- Bank of Am., N.A. v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 338 So. 3d 338 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (trial court may deny rehearing that raises arguments which could have been raised earlier)
- Kovic v. Kovic, 336 So. 3d 22 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022) (arguments first raised in rehearing are not preserved)
- Best v. Educ. Affiliates, Inc., 82 So. 3d 143 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (declining to consider new arguments or evidence raised first in rehearing)
- Trinchitella v. D.R.F., Inc., 584 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (issues raised first in motion for rehearing will not be considered)