SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC PUTNAM COUNTY, Petitioner, JOHN EDMONDS and MARY EDMONDS., Respondent.

Transcription

1 SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC PUTNAM COUNTY, Petitioner, v. JOHN EDMONDS and MARY EDMONDS., Respondent. ON REVIEW FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIFTH DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA L.T. CASE NO: 5D PETITIONER'S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION MARKS GRAY, P.A. Post Office Box 447 Jacksonville, Florida Telephone: (904) Facsimile: (904) Stephen B. Gallagher Florida Bar No.: Meagan L. Logan Florida Bar No.: Counsel for Petitioner Putnam County 1

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS...ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES...iii SS ATTEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACT... 1 SOUMMARYF THE ARGUMENT... 3 ARGUMENT...4 I. This Court has Conflict Jurisdiction... 4 CONCLUSION...7 CC EERTIFI OF SERVI EC TIFI CCA N

3 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Mesa v. Ocean Enterprises, Inc., 803 So.2d 908 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) Rules 9.030(a)(2)(A)(iv)...4 Constitutional Provisions Art. V, 3(b)(3)

4 STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS Putnam County invokes this Court's conflict jurisdiction to determine its entitlement to attorneys' fees pursuant to proposals for settlement rejected by John and Mary Edmonds. After obtaining summary judgment on the Edmonds' claim for summary judgment, Putnam County moved to tax attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P During the hearing on the County's Motion to Tax Attorneys' Fees and Costs, counsel for the Edmonds did not dispute the validity of the proposals for settlement and even conceded that the County was likely entitled to the attorneys' fees sought. At the conclusion of the parties' arguments, the trial court summarily denied the County's Motion to Tax Attorneys' Fees and Costs stating that, though it may be reversible error, awarding attorneys' fees and costs in this action would be "inequitable." The trial court did not make a finding that the proposals for settlement were not made in good faith. On appeal, the Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's denial of costs pursuant to , Fla. Stat., but affirmed the trial court's denial of attorneys' fees "without further opinion". Putnam County moved for rehearing as to the denial of attorneys' fees and in the alternative asked the court to certify conflict since the court's decision to deny Putnam County's request for attorneys' fees when there had been no finding of a lack of good faith by the trial court conflicted with multiple decisions of other courts of appeal. The Fifth District 1

5 denied the motion. Putnam County now asks the Supreme Court to invoke its discretionary jurisdiction to resolve the direct conflict that will exist if the Fifth District's decision to deny the requested attorneys' fees without a finding that the proposal for settlement was not made in good faith is permitted to stand. 2

6 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT This Court has jurisdiction because the decision below conflicts with decisions of other District Courts of Appeal. The trial court denied Putnam County's request for attorneys' fees based on the alleged "inequities" associated with awarding attorneys' fees against individual litigants. The trial court's denial of attorneys' fees did not include a finding that the proposals for settlement by Putnam County were not made in good faith. On appeal, the Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of attorneys' fees "without further opinion". The Fifth District's adoption of the trial court's decision not to award attorneys' fees when there was no finding by the trial court that the proposal was not made in good faith expressly and directly conflicts with the Fourth District's opinion in Mesa v. Ocean Enterprises, Inc., 803 So.2d 908 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), which holds that a lack of good faith is the only basis for denying an award of attorneys' fees stemming from an otherwise successful proposal for settlement. 3

7 ARGUMENT I. This Court has Conflict Jurisdiction This Court has jurisdiction to review the decision of the Fifth District pursuant to Art. V, 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. and Fla. R. App. P (a)(2)(A)(iv), because the Fifth District's opinion expressly and directly conflicts with Mesa v. Ocean Enterprises, Inc., 803 So.2d 908 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). In Mesa, the defendants/appellants served a timely offer of judgment in the amount of $300. Id. at 909. The matter proceeded to trial and resulted in verdict in favor of defendants/appellants as to the claims brought by plaintiff. Id. Appellants filed a motion for attorneys' fees and costs based on the offer of judgment made to plaintiff. At the hearing on Appellants' motion for attorneys' fees, the parties stipulated as to the amount of fees incurred by appellants from the date of service of the offer of judgment. Id. However, plaintiff contested entitlement, alleging that since the offer ofjudgment was for a nominal amount, it was not made in good faith. The trial court summarily denied the motion, without determining whether the offer was made in good faith. Id. at 909. In denying the motion, the trial court stated: But I think I told everybody that they ought to go home and forget the whole thing and get on about their lives. And I still think that. The only question I have is how do I get to that point legally? I guess the simple thing to do, I'll deny the 4

8 Plaintiff's claim for fees; I'll deny the defendant's claim for fees. Everybody go on about your business. Id. at 909, n. 1. On appeal, the Fourth District reversed stating:...once an offer has been filed by a defendant and a judgment is one of no liability by the defendant, the defendant has the right to an award of attorney's fees. The sole basis on which a court can disallow an entitlement to an award of fees is if it determines that a qualifying offer was not made in good faith. We find that appellants met the statutory requirements entitling them to their attorney's fees. As the trial court made no finding that appellants' offer was not made in good faith, the trial court was required to enter an order awarding appellants their attorney's fees. We reverse and remand for entry of an order awarding appellants their attorney's fees in the stipulated amount. Id. at (internal citations omitted) (emphasis added). In the present case, the trial court did not find that the proposals for settlement were not made in good faith. Rather, the trial court refused to award Putnam County attorneys' fees pursuant to its proposal for settlement after stating that it would be inequitable to do so. In affirming the trial court's denial of attorneys' fees, the Fifth District effectively held that the County was not entitled to attorneys' fees despite the trial court's failure to make a finding that the proposals for settlement were not made in good faith. The Fifth District's opinion upholding the denial of attorneys' fees to Putnam County, without a finding that 5

9 the proposals for settlement were not made in good faith, expressly and directly conflicts with Mesa and the Supreme Court should exercise its discretionary conflict jurisdiction to resolve the conflict between Mesa and the Fifth District's recent opinion in Edmonds. 6

10 CONCLUSION The Fifth District's opinion affirming the denial of attorneys' fees expressly and directly conflicts with the Fourth District's decision in Mesa v. Ocean Enterprises, Inc., 803 So.2d 908 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). Accordingly, this Court has conflict jurisdiction and should exercise its discretion to grant review of this case. Respectfully submitted this Ê day of August, Stephe. allagh Flori a Bar N Meag. ogan Florida Bar No.: MARKS GRAY, P.A. P. O. Box 447 Jacksonville, FL Telephone: (904) Facsimile: (904) Attorneysfor Petitioner 7

11 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFIY that a true and correct copy of Petitioner's Brief on Jurisdiction has been furnished via U.S. Mail this \i day ofaugust 2012 to: Borden Hallowes, Esq. 637 Treehouse Circle St. Augustine, FL Meag. ogan Flori a Bar :

12 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE I HEREBY CERTIFY that Petitioner's Brief on Jurisdiction was computergenerated using Times New Roman 14-point font and hereby complies with the font standards as required by Fla. R. App. P for computer-generated briefs. 9