History
  • No items yet
midpage
Sink v. Emerald Hill Owners Ass'n, Inc.
903 So. 2d 1047
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2005
|
Check Treatment
903 So. 2d 1047 (2005)

Virginia J. SINK and Deborah Cross, Appellants,
v.
EMERALD HILL OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida Corporation, Appellee.

No. 1D04-0903.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 17, 2005.

W. Dexter Douglass and Thomas P. Crapps, Douglas Law Firm, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellants.

Gary A. Shipman and David H. Milam, Dunlap, Toole, Shipman and Whitney, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

*1048 PER CURIAM.

Appellants Virginia J. Sink and Deborah Cross appeal an award of attorneys' fees and costs based upon a proposal for settlement made by appellee Emerald Hills Owners Association, Inc., pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442, and section 768.79, Florida Statutes. We reverse because the proposal for settlement was invalid in that it failed to state with sufficient particularity the terms of the release upon which the settlement offer was conditioned. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442(c)(2)(C) & (D) (stating that all relevant conditions and non-monetary terms of the proposal must be stated with particularity); Connell v. Floyd, 866 So. 2d 90, 92 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (stating that "a proposal for settlement should be as specific as possible, leaving no ambiguities, so that the recipient can fully evaluate its terms and conditions").

REVERSED.

DAVIS, LEWIS and POLSTON, JJ., concur.

Case Details

Case Name: Sink v. Emerald Hill Owners Ass'n, Inc.
Court Name: District Court of Appeal of Florida
Date Published: Jun 17, 2005
Citation: 903 So. 2d 1047
Docket Number: 1D04-0903
Court Abbreviation: Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.