South Florida Pool and Spa Corp. v. Sharpe Investment Land Trust Number J, Etc.
2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 17089
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 6th2016Background
- Landlord sued tenant South Florida Pool and Spa and guarantor Sanchez in Jan 2010 for unpaid rent; amended complaint after a February 2010 fire added eviction for failure to maintain required insurance, damages claims, and negligence; each eviction count sought attorney’s fees.
- Trial court severed eviction claims from damages claims and entered summary judgment of eviction in Nov 2010 based on tenant’s failure to procure insurance; that eviction was on appeal separately.
- While eviction appeal was pending, Pool and Spa served a January 2012 proposal for settlement under Fla. Stat. § 768.79 / Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442 offering $15,000 to settle Landlord’s damages claims and attaching a general release; offer conditioned on execution of the attached release and expressly excluded the eviction claims.
- Landlord did not accept; after trial on damages, the trial court dismissed Landlord’s damages claims and entered final judgment for Pool and Spa in Nov 2014.
- Pool and Spa moved for attorney’s fees under its proposal for settlement; the trial court denied fees, finding the attached general release ambiguous because it broadly waived attorney’s fees without an express carve-out for fees tied to the eviction claims.
- The district court affirmed the eviction summary judgment (mooting Landlord’s cross-appeal) and affirmed denial of fees, holding the proposal was ambiguous and therefore unenforceable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Landlord) | Defendant's Argument (Pool and Spa) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the settlement proposal was enforceable such that Pool and Spa was entitled to attorney’s fees under the proposal | The attached release and proposal conflict; release appears to waive all attorney’s fees including those tied to the eviction, so proposal is ambiguous and unenforceable | The proposal explicitly excluded eviction claims and offered $15,000 for damages claims (including attorneys’ fees not part of the negligence claim); thus Pool and Spa sought fees under the valid proposal | Proposal is ambiguous because the release and the proposal conflict about whether eviction-related fees were released; ambiguity rendered the proposal unenforceable and fees were denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Anhloan Tran v. Anvil Iron Works, Inc., 110 So. 3d 923 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (standard of review for enforceability of proposals for settlement is de novo)
- Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Pollinger, 42 So. 3d 890 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (ambiguity in settlement proposal affecting offeree’s decision renders proposal unenforceable)
- Stasio v. McManaway, 936 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (discrepancy between proposal and attached release creates ambiguity as to settlement terms)
- Palm Beach Polo Holdings, Inc. v. Vill. of Wellington, 904 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (attached general release can cause confusion about scope of released claims)
- Lyons v. Chamoun, 96 So. 3d 456 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (requiring clarity when a proposal conditions settlement on execution of a full release)
- Russell Post Props., Inc. v. Leaders Bank, 159 So. 3d 348 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (failure to attach a release is not always fatal where proposal sufficiently references the release)