Marshall Cassedy, Jr. v. Monique Wood, Nikki Clark and Darcy Cavell
263 So. 3d 300
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2019Background
- Landlord Marshall Cassedy sued three lessees for breach of lease after they vacated and stopped paying rent; jury awarded Cassedy $83,657.60 jointly and severally.
- Cassedy served identical section 768.79 proposals for settlement of $25,000 to each lessee, which were rejected.
- The lease contained a contractual attorney’s-fee provision awarding 10% of collected past-due rent as fees.
- At the post-judgment hearing the trial court awarded fees under the lease (10% of the judgment) but denied additional fees under section 768.79, finding (1) the lease terms controlled and (2) the settlement offers were ambiguous as to aggregation.
- Cassedy appealed, arguing the contract provision does not preclude statutory fees and the offers should not be aggregated; the First DCA reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a contractual fee clause bars recovery under Fla. Stat. § 768.79 | Cassedy: contract does not waive or preclude statutory fees; both awards can be simultaneous | Lessees: lease fee term controls and precludes additional statutory fees | Court: Contractual fees do not preclude mandatory statutory fees under §768.79 when statutory requirements are met; both may be awarded simultaneously |
| Whether multiple identical offers to separate defendants may be aggregated to defeat § 768.79 recovery | Cassedy: offers are separate; judgment exceeds each offer by ≥25% so statute applies | Lessees: trial court treated offers as ambiguous and implied possible aggregation | Court: Aggregation is not permitted; entitlement measured against each individual offer per Anderson v. Hilton Hotels; Cassedy met the 25% threshold |
Key Cases Cited
- Kuhajda v. Borden Dairy Co. of Ala., LLC, 202 So. 3d 391 (review standard for §768.79 fee rulings) (de novo review applies)
- Tierra Holdings, Ltd. v. Mercantile Bank, 78 So. 3d 558 (explaining interplay of contractual fees and statutory penalties) (contract fees do not automatically cut off statutory fees)
- Anderson v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 202 So. 3d 846 (offers aggregation rule) (offers to separate defendants cannot be aggregated under §768.79)
- Willis Shaw Express, Inc. v. Hilyer Sod, Inc., 849 So. 2d 276 (statute must be strictly construed) (penalty statutes construed narrowly)
- Sarkis v. Allstate Ins. Co., 863 So. 2d 210 (construction principle for penalty statutes) (strict construction in favor of party against whom penalty is imposed)
- TGI Friday’s, Inc. v. Dvorak, 663 So. 2d 606 (statutory fee award is mandatory if requirements met) (good-faith offer/demand prerequisites)
- Land & Sea Petroleum, Inc. v. Bus. Specialists, Inc., 53 So. 3d 348 (supporting simultaneous contractual and statutory fee awards) (DCA precedent allowing both awards)
- Fed. Auto Ins., Inc. v. Bus. Acquisitions Brokerage, Inc., 839 So. 2d 767 (analogous authority permitting dual fee awards) (statutory penalty plus contract fees)