Legal Opinion
Graham v. Peter K. Yeskel 1996 Irrevocable Trust
District Court of Appeal of Florida
Decided March 1, 2006No. 4D05-1100PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtGross, J.
We affirm the trial court’s denial óf appellants’ motion for attorney’s fees.
Richard and Ann Graham were the defendants in the circuit court. Their joint proposal for settlement did not apportion the offer between them, so that it did not “state the amount and terms attributable to- each party,” as required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442(c)(3). This *372deficiency in the offer was fatal to their motion for fees.
Lamb v. Matetzschk, 906 So.2d 1037, 1042 (Fla.2005), holds that “[r]ule 1.442(c)(3) expressly requires that a joint proposal for settlement made by two or more parties be…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Willis Shaw Express, Inc. v. Hilyer Sod, Inc.Supreme Court of Florida · 2003
- Lamb v. MatetzschkSupreme Court of Florida · 2005
- 1 Nation Technology Corp. v. A1 TELETRONICSDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2005
- DAB Constructors, Inc. v. OliverDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2005
- Heymann v. FreeDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2005
3Cited by12 opinions
- Ancel Pratt, Jr. v. Michael C. Weiss, D.O.Supreme Court of Florida · 2015
- Valerie Audiffred v. Thomas B. ArnoldSupreme Court of Florida · 2015
- Auto-Owners Insurance v. Southeast Floating Docks, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2011
- Mourning v. Ballast Nedam Const., Inc.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 2007
- KMS Restaurant Corp. v. Wendy's International, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2006
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.