1-561-514-0900 FREE CONSULTATION

Appellate Attorney’s Fees & Florida Statute 768.79- September 21, 2016 Second DCA Opinion

Uncategorized Sep 23, 2016
post about Appellate Attorney’s Fees & Florida Statute 768.79- September 21, 2016 Second DCA Opinion

What is Florida Statute 768.79? What is a proposal for settlement? What constitutes a valid proposal for settlement? When are appellate attorney fees awarded to  party? What is the Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442? If you are involved in an appeal, you should read Saterbo v. Markuson to learn more about appellate attorneys fees.

What is Fla. Stat. 768.79?

  • Fla. Stat. 768.79 allows for a party to make an offer of judgment in good faith in order to avoid the costs of a needless trial.
  • This Florida law is often used by probate litigation law firms in West Palm Beach.
  • The statute can be used to recover Florida attorneys fees if you win your trust and estates lawsuit under certain circumstances.
  • The offer of judgment law in Florida, Florida Law 768.79, is actually called a proposal for settlement.
  • You should also read Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442 if you hope to be awarded attorneys fees in your Florida lawsuit.

Saterbo v. Markuson

  • In this casethe Saterbos appealed a final judgment.
  • In the appeal, Markuson filed a motion for appellate attorneys’ fees.
  • The Second DCA “granted Markuson’s motion for appellate attorneys’ fees “contingent upon a determination by the trial court that Markuson was entitled to such fees.”
  • The trial court determined that Markuson was entitled to costs, but not appellate attorneys fees.
  • Markuson asks the Second DCA to review the decision of the trial court regarding the attorneys fees.
  • The Saterbos argued, and the trial court agreed, that the settlement offer did not entitle Markuson to attorneys fees because it did not apportion damages between Erik and Stephen.
  • Furthermore, the trial court determined that the proposal from Markuson to the Saterbos was ” ambiguous and lacked particularity thereby making it impossible for the Saterbos to make an informed decision as to whether to accept the proposal.”
  • The Second DCA disagreed and remanded for “entry of an order granting appellate attorneys fees as against Erik Saterbo and his insurer.”
  • To read the entire case, click here.