Polk County v. Highlands-In-The-Woods, L.L.C.
227 So. 3d 161
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Highlands-in-the-Woods (Highlands) sued Polk County for inverse condemnation and takings claims, seeking money damages for additional development expenses tied to a required reclaimed water system.
- Polk County's land development code required installation of the reclaimed system; Highlands alleged the county did not supply reclaimed water promptly, causing damages.
- Polk County served a $5,000 proposal for settlement offering dismissal with prejudice of all claims in exchange for payment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Polk County; the court awarded costs but denied Polk County's motion for attorney fees under section 768.79, Florida Statutes.
- Polk County appealed the denial of fees, arguing its offer complied with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442 and Highlands did not seek equitable relief.
- The Second District reversed, concluding the proposal satisfied rule 1.442 and the complaint sought monetary relief (not equitable relief), and remanded to award reasonable attorney fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Polk County's proposal for settlement complied with Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442 | Proposal invalid because it failed to state nonmonetary settlement terms, punitive-damage amount, and that it resolved all damages | Proposal stated $5,000 in exchange for dismissal with prejudice of all claims and intended to fully settle the lawsuit | Proposal complied with rule 1.442; general language resolving all claims was sufficient |
| Whether Polk County had to include punitive damages in the proposal | N/A (Highlands did not claim punitive damages) | Not required to include punitive-damage terms absent a punitive-damage claim in the pleadings | No punitive-damage terms required where pleadings do not assert punitive damages |
| Whether the presence of a declaratory relief count in Highlands’ complaint foreclosed fee recovery under §768.79 | Declaratory count means equitable relief exists; §768.79 inapplicable when plaintiff seeks equitable relief | The declaratory count sought a declaration of right to compensation (money), not equitable remedies | The complaint pleaded an action for damages (not equitable relief); §768.79 applies |
| Whether Polk County was entitled to attorney fees under §768.79 after prevailing and serving a valid offer of judgment | N/A | Polk County entitled to fees because valid offer and complaint sought damages | Polk County entitled to attorney fees; remanded to determine reasonable amount |
Key Cases Cited
- Diamond Aircraft Indus., Inc. v. Horowitch, 107 So. 3d 362 (Fla. 2013) (section 768.79 does not apply where plaintiff seeks both damages and equitable relief and defendant's general offer seeks full release)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Nichols, 932 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 2006) (a proposal should be capable of execution without judicial interpretation)
- Lucas v. Calhoun, 813 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (general statements resolving all claims may suffice in a settlement proposal)
- Miley v. Nash, 171 So. 3d 145 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (proposal indicating resolution of all claims in complaint need not list individual damage elements)
- Wolfe v. Culpepper Constructors, Inc., 104 So. 3d 1132 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (entitlement to fees under an offer of judgment reviewed de novo)
- Nat'l Indem. Co. of the S. v. Consol. Ins. Servs., 778 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (courts evaluate whether the real issue in a complaint is damages or equitable relief)
- DiPompeo Constr. Corp. v. Kimmel & Assocs., 916 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (section 768.79 applies where the central issue is entitlement to money damages despite seeking declaratory relief)
- Nelson v. Marine Grp. of Palm Beach, Inc., 677 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (declaratory-judgment actions seeking only money are subject to §768.79)