Background
Anna Puett brought a premises-liability claim involving Florida Oranges, LLC, Howey Mansion, LLC, and Blush by Brandee Gaar, LLC. Three appeals arising from that claim were consolidated before the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal.
The circuit court entered summary judgments for Howey Mansion and Blush. It also denied Howey Mansion’s requests for attorney’s fees and costs. Howey Mansion sought fees under a joint proposal of settlement made with Florida Oranges and sought costs under section 57.041, Florida Statutes.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth District affirmed the summary judgments, concluding that the evidence was so one-sided that Howey Mansion and Blush were entitled to prevail as a matter of law. It also affirmed the denial of attorney’s fees because only one of the joint offerors obtained a judgment and the joint proposal required Puett to settle with both offerors.
The court reversed the denial of costs. Section 57.041(1) mandates an award of lawful costs to a party that recovers judgment, leaving the trial court no discretion to deny those costs. Because Howey Mansion recovered judgment, it was entitled to lawful costs. The court remanded for further proceedings on that issue.
Key Takeaways
- Summary judgment is proper when the evidence is so one-sided that a party must prevail as a matter of law.
- A joint proposal requiring settlement with both offerors did not support attorney’s fees where only one offeror obtained a judgment.
- Under section 57.041(1), a party that recovers judgment is entitled to its lawful costs.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes between attorney’s fees sought through a joint proposal of settlement and statutory costs awarded to a prevailing judgment holder. A defect preventing recovery of proposal-based fees does not eliminate the mandatory right to lawful costs under section 57.041(1).