PADILLA v. BUELL (2003)

District Court of Appeal of Florida,Third District.

Fulgencio PADILLA, Sr., Appellant, v. Donald BUELL, Appellee.

No. 3D02-1945.

Decided: April 02, 2003

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and COPE and WELLS, JJ.

William M. Tuttle, II, Miami, for appellant. Tew Cardenas Rebak Kellogg Lehman DeMaria Tague Raymond & Levine and William G. Burd and John S. McPhee and Peter F. Valori, Miami, for appellee.

Fulgencio Padilla, Sr., plaintiff below, appeals an award of attorney's fees and costs against him under the offer of judgment statute. See § 768.79, Fla. Stat. (1997). On the issue of entitlement, we conclude that the offer was neither ambiguous nor conditional. It does not appear that there was an entire change in the defense offered by the defendant, and thus the decision in Southwinds Farm, Inc. v. Albertson, 664 So.2d 13 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), is inapplicable. We see no harmful procedural error, nor does the fact that the defense offer of judgment was $2,500 render it a bad faith offer. See Levine v. Harris, 791 So.2d 1175 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). The amount of attorney's fees and costs is supported by the record.

Affirmed.^*

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE. For present purposes we have assumed that there is no procedural bar under Silva v. U.S. Security Ins. Co., 734 So.2d 429 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999).

PER CURIAM.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network