In family law cases, attorney fees are often based on the “need and ability to pay” standard. This can get quite complicated, as I am sure we all need (or at least want) someone else to pay our attorney’s fees. The problem is whether or not the other side as the ability to pay them.
In civil cases, it can be possible to get attorney fees from the other side if a contract provides for fees, or if a statute is on-point. There is an additional way: a Proposal for Settlement. This is governed by Florida Statute §768.79 and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442.
While the language of both can get complex, it is interesting what can happen if a party chooses to use a proposal for settlement. Recently, in RJ Reynolds and Liggett Group v. Ward, the Plaintiff sought damages from the Defendants. During the time the case was pending, the Plaintiff sent a proposal for settlement, which indicated an amount to settle the case. The Defendant did not accept the proposal. Without going into the nuances of what is required under a proposal for settlement in order to trigger an award of attorney fees, in this case, the Plaintiff received an award from the jury that was well above the proposal. The trial court determined that the Plaintiff was entitled to attorney fees. RJ Reynolds appealed.
The 1st District Court of Appeals held that the Plaintiff did not properly comply with the statute and the Rule of Civil Procedure, and strict compliance is necessary, so the award of $1,452,337.62 in attorney’s fees was reversed. The court even noted that it was clear that punitive damages (the item that wasn’t specifically included in the proposal for settlement) would have been extinguished if the tobacco companies had accepted the offer, but the supreme court made the test strict compliance, not the absence of ambiguity.
Photos in this blog are courtesy of: blog.jamessansonelaw.com, socialsecurityinsider.com