146 So. 3d 129
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2014Background
- In Dec. 2007 Rene Santana slipped on property owned by Flanco; Santana and his wife Torres sued Flanco for negligent maintenance.
- Flanco asserted third-party fault by Design Home; Santana and Torres amended their complaint on Mar. 26, 2010 to add Design Home as a defendant.
- Design Home served individual proposals for settlement to Santana and Torres on May 25, 2010 (60 days after it was added as a defendant). The proposals were made under Fla. Stat. § 768.79 and Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442.
- Santana and Torres did not accept or respond to the proposals. Three years later the trial court entered summary final judgment in favor of Design Home.
- Design Home moved for attorney’s fees under the proposals for settlement; the trial court denied the motion as premature under rule 1.442(b). Design Home appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Santana/Torres) | Defendant's Argument (Design Home) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were Design Home’s proposals for settlement timely under rule 1.442(b)? | Proposals were premature and therefore invalid; no entitlement to fees. | Proposals were served 60 days after Design Home was named and thus adequate; any prematurity is a mere technical defect. | The proposals were premature (served 60 days after Design Home was added, not 90) and invalid under rule 1.442(b); fees denied. |
| Do precedents treating prematurity as a harmless technical violation survive Campbell v. Goldman? | Prior district-court decisions remain persuasive; prematurity should not automatically void a proposal. | Relied on Kuvin and Shoppes to argue harmless-error approach. | The Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Campbell requires strict compliance; Kuvin and Shoppes were effectively overruled/sub silentio limited and prematurity is not excused. |
Key Cases Cited
- Campbell v. Goldman, 959 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 2007) (requires strict compliance with rule 1.442 and § 768.79; technical defects are not excused)
- Willis Shaw Exp., Inc. v. Hilyer Sod, Inc., 849 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 2003) (statute and rule in derogation of common law must be strictly construed)
- Kuvin v. Keller Ladders, Inc., 797 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (held prematurity harmless in third-party defendant context; court here distinguished/overruled by Campbell)
- Shoppes of Liberty City, LLC v. Sotolongo, 932 So. 2d 468 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (applied Kuvin’s harmless-technical-violation rationale; court here rejected that approach post-Campbell)
- McMullen Oil Co. v. ISS Int’l Svc. Sys., 698 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (one of the district decisions referenced in Campbell approving strict construction)
- Pippin v. Latosynski, 622 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (district-court authority cited in Campbell endorsing strict compliance)