Luizza v. YaegerLuizza v. Yaeger
ON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION
We grant Appellant‘s motion for clarification. We withdraw our opinion of October 26, 1990, and substitute the following.
THREADGILL, Judge.
Percy Luizza, defendant below, appeals from a final order denying his motion for attorney‘s fees and costs. We affirm that portion of the order which denied attorney‘s fees, but reverse and remand as to costs.
During the pendency of a suit for personal injuries arising out of a motor vehicle accident, Luizza served an offer of judgment in the amount of $6,501.00 on plaintiff Elva Yaeger pursuant to
The trial court denied Luizza‘s motion for attorney‘s fees and costs, based on this court‘s decision in Aspen v. Bayless, 552 So.2d 298 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). After the briefs were filed in this case, the Florida Supreme Court quashed our decision in Aspen. See Aspen v. Bayless, 564 So.2d 1081 (Fla. 1990). Aspen, therefore, would no longer impede Luizza‘s recovery of costs or fees.
Luizza predicates his entitlement to attorney‘s fees and costs upon
The above cited cases do not, however, preclude Luizza‘s recovery of costs as a prevailing party under
Reversed in part, and remanded.
SCHEB, A.C.J., and DANAHY, J., concur.