Schantz v. Sekine
60 So. 3d 444
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- Plaintiffs sued for medical malpractice and defense verdict was entered.
- Defendants (Appellees) moved for costs and attorney’s fees under 768.79(1) after prevailing on the merits.
- Appellees’ settlement proposal sought to resolve all claims for $100,000, with $95,000 to one plaintiff and $5,000 to the other, and included a confidential release and dismissal with prejudice.
- The proposal required written acceptance within 30 days and appeared conditioned on the plaintiffs acting jointly.
- The trial court awarded costs and fees, but the appellate court reversed, holding the offer invalid under Gorka.
- The decision discusses Rule 1.442(3) and the shift in enforceability after Gorka, and remands to reverse the fee judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the offer of judgment was valid despite apportionment | Schantz argues offer was joint and valid if terms apportioned per party | Appellees contend offer was conditioned on joint acceptance rendering it invalid | Invalid due to joint-acceptance conditioning |
| Effect of Gorka on pre-existing joint-offer practices under Rule 1.442(3) | Pre-Gorka practice allowed differentiated, apportioned joint offers | Gorka disapproved conditioned, joint offers as antithesis of differentiated offers | Gorka invalidates the offer; cannot uphold |
| Effect of the offer on attorney’s fees and costs under 768.79(1) | Prevailing party should recover costs and fees under the statute | Offer invalidates recovery if not properly conditioned and accepted | Fees and costs award reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney's Title Ins. Fund, Inc. v. Gorka, 36 So.3d 646 (Fla. 2010) (invalidates joint-settlement offers conditioned on joint acceptance)
- Clements v. Rose, 982 So.2d 731 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (preceding rule allowing differentiated apportionment in joint offers)
- Gorka (Polston, J., dissenting), 36 So.3d 646 (Fla.2010) (noting the impact of Gorka on joint offers and differentiation)
- Security Professionals, Inc. v. Segall, 685 So.2d 1381 (Fla.4th DCA 1997) (criticized offer-of-judgment proliferation of litigation)
- Unicare Health Facilities, Inc. v. Mort, 553 So.2d 159 (Fla.1989) (early concern about settlement-like effects of offers)
- Campbell v. Goldman, 959 So.2d 223 (Fla.2007) (commentary on whether rule 1.442 or 768.79 fulfills settlement goals)