Wolfe v. Culpepper Constructors, Inc.
104 So. 3d 1132
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Culpepper Constructors built a large addition/remodel of the Wolfe historic residence; Culpepper filed a lien for $91,261.65 after project completion.
- Wolfe refused to pay, leading Culpepper to sue to foreclose the lien and pursue contract damages; Wolfe counterclaimed alleging defective workmanship.
- The jury found the reasonable value of Culpepper's work at $91,261.65 and awarded prejudgment interest from June 19, 2006; after setoffs, Culpepper's final judgment was $9,074.06.
- The Wolfes made a joint offer of judgment for $25,000 ($12,500 each) which Culpepper rejected; the offer required dismissal with prejudice and lien clearance.
- Trial court ruled the joint offer invalid due to interdependent terms; on appeal, the court held the Wolfes' offer was valid and entitled them to fees related to an invalid lien claim.
- On costs, the court receded from Spring Lake and held Culpepper was entitled to costs under 57.041(1); overall, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for proceedings to determine amounts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Attorney’s fees under offer of judgment | Wolfes: valid joint offer; Culpepper unreasonably rejected; fees should be awarded. | Culpepper: joint offer invalid because it improperly conditioned on dismissals against both offerors. | Wolfes entitled to fees related to an invalid lien; offer deemed valid and enforceable. |
| Costs under 57.041(1) | Moritz governs prevailing party for costs; Wolfes recover costs when they recover judgment on substantial issues. | Culpepper should recover costs as prevailing party under statutory framework. | Culpepper entitled to costs under 57.041(1); Spring Lake is overruled to the extent inconsistent. |
| Validity of the Wolfes' joint offer of judgment | Offer satisfied 1) apportionment to each party, 2) directed to the sole offeree, Culpepper, with independent evaluation. | Offer improperly conditioned on other dismissals and thus invalid as a joint offer. | Wolfes' joint offer was valid under 1.442(c)(3); Culpepper could evaluate and reject independently. |
| Remand scope for amount determinations | Remand to determine specific attorney's fees and costs due consistent with this opinion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Willis Shaw Express, Inc. v. Hilyer Sod, Inc., 849 So.2d 276 (Fla. 2003) (sanctions for unaccepted settlement offers; de novo review)
- Gorka v. Attorney's Title Ins. Fund, Inc., 36 So.3d 646 (Fla. 2010) (joint offers must apportion amounts; validity depends on compliance)
- Rossmore v. Smith, 55 So.3d 680 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (offers directed to sole plaintiff; independent evaluation; not undifferentiated)
- Andrews v. Frey, 66 So.3d 376 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (validity of settlement offers where offeror and offeree identified)
- Hendry Tractor Co. v. Fernandez, 432 So.2d 1315 (Fla. 1983) (clear language: party recovering judgment entitled to costs)
- Moritz v. Hoyt Enterprises, Inc., 604 So.2d 807 (Fla. 1992) (prevailing party for attorney’s fees; distinguishes costs)
- Spring Lake Improvement Dist. v. Tyrrell, 868 So.2d 656 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (earlier view that costs under 57.041 require prevailing party)
- J. Sourini Painting, Inc. v. Johnson Paints, Inc., 809 So.2d 95 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) ( Moritz discussed in context of prevailing party; new trial issued)
- Bessey v. Difilippo, 951 So.2d 992 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (aligns with Hendry Tractor on costs)