Proposals for Settlement when there is a Contractual or Statutory Basis for Attorney’s Fees

In an earlier posting I talked about proposals for settlement / offers of judgment. Again, these are used as a vehicle to create an argument for attorney’s fees down the road, particularly in cases where a party does not have a contractual or statutory basis to recover attorney’s fees. Please check out this article for more information on proposals for settlement because they have become an unnecessarily complicated vehicle with nuances that have resulted in an exorbitant amount of case law. As a result, while the argument to recover fees is preserved by serving the proposal for settlement, it is...

29 March

0 Comments

Sticky

Considerations Involving Proposals for Settlement / Offers for Judgment

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

There needs to be a contractual or statutory basis in order to be entitled to recover your reasonable attorneys' fees at trial. See Cadenhead v. Gaetz, 677 So.2d 96, 97 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). This means either the contract needs to support a basis for the party to recover attorney’s fees (such as a prevailing party attorneys’ fees provision or a contractual indemnification provision that authorizes attorneys’ fees) or there needs to be a statute that authorizes you to recover reasonable attorneys' fees. Absent these bases, there is generally no basis to recover attorneys' fees. However, there is a vehicle under...

08 October

0 Comments

Sticky

Petition for Writ of Mandamus – Directing Trial Court to Take Action

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal, Trial Perspectives

“To be entitled to mandamus relief, the petitioner must demonstrate a clear legal right to the performance of a ministerial duty.” “A ministerial duty is one where there is no room for the exercise of discretion, and the performance being required is directed by law.” Further, “[a] writ of mandamus may issue to require a timely ruling on a matter pending before a lower tribunal.” If an appellate court issues a writ of mandamus, it merely “directs the trial court to take action, but does not decide the merits.” Griffin Windows and Doors, LLC v. Pomeroy, 47 Fla.L.Weekly D2013b (Fla. 3d...

05 December

0 Comments

Sticky

Recovering Attorney’s Fees “Incurred” on Party’s Behalf

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

Simply because a defendant does not pay his/her/its own attorney's fees does not mean the defendant is not entitled to recover attorney’s fees incurred on his/her/its behalf. That wouldn’t seem to make much sense since attorney's fees would have been incurred on the defendant’s behalf. Who actually writes the check to pay the attorney's fees is really of no moment, right? Therefore, do not bank your argument that another party will never be entitled to recover their fees because that other party did not personally pay for his/her/its own attorney's fees. This was the argument raised in Jain v. Buchanan...

17 December

0 Comments

Sticky

Quick Note: Order Denying Attorney’s Fees Reviewed De Novo

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal

An order denying a motion for attorney's fees is generally reviewed under a de novo standard of appellate review. In a recent case I wrote about dealing with a coverage dispute between an insured and a property insurer, both the insured and insurer moved for attorney's fees after the jury's verdict. In this case, the insured moved for attorney's fees pursuant to statute -- Florida Statute s. 627.428. The trial court denied the insured's motion. The insurer moved for attorney's fees pursuant to a proposal for settlement / offer of judgment it served under Florida Statute s. 768.79. The trial...

03 November

0 Comments

Sticky

Prevailing Party for Purposes of Attorney’s Fees in Breach of Contract Claims

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

To be entitled to attorney’s fees, there needs to be a contractual or statutory basis to recover attorney’s fees (absent serving a proposal for settlement). There is oftentimes the misconception in breach of contract cases that the party that recovers a positive net judgment will automatically recover their attorney’s fees. While, certainly, sometimes this is the case, this is NOT what you should be banking on. The law has tried to progress to a point where it does not want certain cases to be driven solely by the prospect of recovering attorney’s fees just because you won $1. The Florida Supreme Court in Moritz v....