Case Name: Jonathan R. ZACHEM, Appellant, v. PARADIGM PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT TEAM, INC., Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2004-03-18
Citations: 867 So. 2d 1263
Docket Number: No. 1D03-1951
Parties: Jonathan R. ZACHEM, Appellant, v. PARADIGM PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT TEAM, INC., Appellee.
Judges: BARFIELD, KAHN and HAWKES, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 867
Pages: 1263–1263

Head Matter:
Jonathan R. ZACHEM, Appellant, v. PARADIGM PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT TEAM, INC., Appellee.
No. 1D03-1951.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
March 18, 2004.
Stephen C. Bullock of Brannon, Brown, Haley, Robinson & Bullock, P.A., Lake City, for Appellant.
Carl B. Schwait and Elizabeth M. Collins, of Dell Graham, P.A., Gainesville, for Appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The trial court committed no abuse of discretion in determining that appellee's offer of judgment was not made in bad faith and, after making such a determination, allowing attorney's fees against appellant. Here, appellee obtained a summary judgment of no liability, which has now been affirmed by this court. Zachem v. Paradigm Props. Mgmt. Team, Inc., 861 So.2d 1160 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (table). A nominal offer is appropriate where the of-feror has-a reasonable basis to believe that exposure to liability is minimal. See, e.g., Dean v. Vazquez, 786 So.2d 637, 640 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) ("[A]s confirmed by the jury verdict the Defendants had a reasonable basis to conclude their exposure was nominal."); Deltona House Rentals, Inc. v. Cloer, 734 So.2d 586,-588 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) ("In. light of the manifest lack of liability, [appellant] was not obliged to offer more than a nominal amount for its offer to be in good faith."); City of Neptune Beach v. Smith, 740 So.2d 25, 27 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (acknowledging, the "widely accepted view that even a nominal offer may be made in good faith").
AFFIRMED.
BARFIELD, KAHN and HAWKES, JJ., concur.
Although not dispositive, the ultimate outcome of the proceedings is certainly a consideration in determining whether an offer was made in good faith. See McMahan v. Toto, 311 F.3d 1077, 1084-85 (11th Cir.2002) (finding the argument that the offeror lacked a reasonable belief that it would prevail to be "illogical'' and "unreasonable," in light of the fact that the offeror prevailed on summary judgment).