Court Opinion

ID: 9904711
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-27 16:45:17.318737+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:04.765978
License: Public Domain

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
                      FIFTH DISTRICT

                                  NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
                                  FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
                                  DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

ALBERT GHAZZAWIEH AND
INSTALLATION CORP. &
CONSTRUCTION, LLC,

            Appellants,
                                        Case No. 5D21-879
v.                                      LT Case No. 2017-CA-0507

JONY IGLESIAS,

            Appellee.

________________________________/

Opinion filed April 8, 2022

Appeal from the Circuit Court
for Seminole County,
Donna L. McIntosh, Judge.

Shelley Ray Senecal, of Law Office of
Shelley Senecal, Fort Lauderdale, for
Appellants.

Jeffrey M. Byrd, of Jeffrey M. Byrd,
P.A., Orlando, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.
      After prevailing at trial, Jony Iglesias (Plaintiff below) obtained an

award of attorney's fees pursuant to his proposals for settlement.         The

proposals for settlement included language that "[t]his proposal is conditioned

upon payment of this settlement proposal within the relevant 30–day service

period." Appellants argue that the trial court erred in denying their motion to

strike the proposals for settlement. We affirm.

      In their initial brief, Appellants articulate a single basis in support of

their argument that the proposals for settlement did not strictly conform to the

requirements set forth in section 768.79, Florida Statutes (2017), and Florida

Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442. Specifically, Appellants contend that the

proposals for settlement improperly shortened the 30–day time period for

acceptance of a proposal for settlement provided in section 768.79(4), Florida

Statutes (2017), and rule 1.442(f)(1). We reject that argument. As Iglesias

correctly observes, a tender of payment and a written acceptance of the

proposal for settlement could have been made simultaneously. Thus, we

conclude that the proposals for settlement served below did not shorten the

time period for acceptance.

      Our affirmance of the trial court's order should not be construed as a

determination that the proposals for settlement at issue strictly complied with

                                       2
section 768.79 and rule 1.442. Rather, our opinion reflects a rejection of the

sole argument made on appeal by Appellants on the issue.

      AFFIRMED.

EVANDER, EISNAUGLE and WOZNIAK, JJ., concur.

                                      3