Winter Park Imports, Inc. v. JM Family Enterprises
66 So. 3d 336
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Winter Park Imports sued JM Family entities under the Florida Motor Vehicle Dealer Act for monetary damages and for injunctive relief.
- Plaintiff sought to prohibit dealership ownership/operation in Orange and Margate and to enjoin unlicensed operation of Lexus dealerships and distributorships.
- Defendants offered judgments to plaintiff on their offers of judgment; plaintiff rejected them.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for defendants; this court affirmed on related appeals.
- Defendants separately sought attorney's fees under section 768.79, arguing the offers should be calculated against the judgment.
- Issue presented: whether § 768.79 applies to actions that request both monetary and injunctive relief and to offers directed to such mixed claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 768.79 applies to actions requesting both monetary and injunctive relief. | Winter Park contends § 768.79 applies to the entire action. | JM Family/Southeast Toyota argue the statute applies only to monetary damages, not injunctive relief. | Statute does not apply to mixed monetary/injunctive claims. |
| Whether an offer of judgment directed to a monetary claim with injunctive terms is enforceable under rule 1.442 when § 768.79 does not apply. | Offers could be used; the rule controls procedure. | Purported compliance with rule 1.442 does not create a fee entitlement absent § 768.79. | Rule 1.442 compliance cannot create entitlement when § 768.79 is inapplicable. |
Key Cases Cited
- National Indemnity Co. of the South v. Consol. Ins. Servs., 778 So.2d 404 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (offers of judgment do not apply to pure declaratory actions seeking insurance coverage only)
- Palm Beach Polo Holdings, Inc. v. Equestrian Club Estates Property Owners Ass'n, 22 So.3d 140 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (§ 768.79 inapplicable where action seeks both damages and nonmonetary relief and offer targets monetary claims)
- Sarkis v. Allstate Ins. Co., 863 So.2d 210 (Fla.2003) (fees are penalties; strict construction favors non‑entitled party)
- Menendez v. Progressive Express Ins. Co., Inc., 35 So.3d 873 (Fla.2010) (statutory rights to attorney's fees are substantive, not procedural)
- Campbell v. Goldman, 959 So.2d 223 (Fla.2007) (statutory right to attorney's fees is substantive; rules govern only procedural matters)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Nichols, 932 So.2d 1067 (Fla.2006) (describes limits on introducing nonmonetary terms in an offer of judgment)