93 So. 3d 1151
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- RTG appeals a final order denying entitlement to attorney’s fees under a proposal for settlement (Rule 1.442).
- The Coates sued RTG for negligence and loss of consortium after a RTG-installed shelf fell and struck Mr. Coates.
- RTG served a proposal for settlement on January 28, 2011, the 45th day before the March 14, 2011 trial start date.
- The trial court held the proposal untimely under Rule 1.442(b) after counting days forward from service and excluding the service day.
- The jury ultimately favored RTG; RTG then moved for attorney’s fees and costs, which the court denied as to the fees but granted costs.
- This appeal challenges the trial court’s interpretation and timing calculation under Rule 1.442(b) and asks for entitlement to fees based on the timely 1/28/2011 proposal.
- The appellate court reverses, holds the proposal was timely, and remands for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of service under Rule 1.442(b) | RTG: service on the 45th day before trial complies with 1.442(b). | Coates: count 45 days backward from trial date, excluding service day; 1/28 is one day late. | Proposal timely; trial court erred in denying fees. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jacksonville Land Holding Co. v. Am. Oil Co., 136 Fla. 491, 188 So. 809 (Fla. 1938) (time computation: include first day, exclude last; when deadline is prior to a specified day)
- McMillen v. Hamilton, 48 So.2d 162 (Fla.1950) (time computation rule: include first day, exclude last day)
- Goldstein v. Wortmann, 712 So.2d 397 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (includes first day in computation when applying similar timing rules)
- Kroener v. Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass’n, 63 So.3d 914 (Fla.4th DCA 2011) (illustrates interpretation of 1.442(b) timing)
- Willis Shaw Exp., Inc. v. Hilyer Sod, Inc., 849 So.2d 276 (Fla.2003) (strict construction of fee-shifting rules)