Equestrian Club owned a private road which Palm Beach Polo wanted to use to access a "landlocked" parcel of property. Palm Beach Polo filed suit against Equestrian Club, seeking a declaratory judgment that Palm Beach was entitled to 300 votes in the election of the board of directors based on a prior agreement. Palm Beach also claimed money damages for tortious interference with its attempt to sell the property, as Equestrian had erected a fence blocking access. Prior to trial, Equestrian Club filed three separate proposals for settlement, offering to pay $1,001.00 as settlement of all claims, but containing no provision regarding the equitable relief sought.

A non-jury trial resulted in a verdict for Equestrian Club on two counts for declaratory judgment and one count for tortious interference (which claimed money damages). Equestrian Club moved for attorney's fees and costs based on the proposals for settlement filed prior to trial. The trial Court granted the motion and awarded fees. Palm Beach appealed. The 4th DCA in reliance on Campbell v. Goldman, 959 So. 2d 223, 226 (Fla. 2007) noted that the offer of judgment statute should be strictly construed. The Equestrian Club proposal did not state whether the association was agreeing to an entry of any injunctions or declaratory relief regarding the right of way, though it claimed to be a proposal to settle all claims. The 4th DCA concluded acceptance of the proposal would not satisfy one of the purposes of 768.79 which was early termination of the litigation, as the terms in the proposal were ambiguous as to the declaratory relief. Applying a strict construction standard of the statute, the 4th reversed the trial court's ruling awarding fees, finding the proposal for settlement did not fall within the parameters of the offer of judgment statute, as it did not specifically resolve both the claim for injunctive relief and the claim for monetary damages.

* * *

For more information on this topic, you may send an email to Dorothy Venable DiFiore at .