Zalis v. MEJ Rich Corp.
Cases that cite this one
15 later published cases cite this decision.
- USAA Casualty Insurance v. Auffant (In re Auffant) (United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida 2002)
- BD. OF TRUSTEES OF FL. ATL. UNIV. v. Bowman (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)
- Board of Trustees v. Bowman (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)
- Dryden v. Pedemonti (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)
- Espinoza v. Target Corporation (United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida 2021)
- Ambeca, Inc. v. MARINA COVE VILLAGE ASS'N (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)
- Nichols v. State Farm Mut. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)
- TOWER HILL SIGNATURE INSURANCE COMPANY v. ALEX KUSHCH (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2022)
- Landi v. Home Depot USA, Inc. (United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida 2020)
- Fonseca v. Wal-Mart Stores, East, LP (United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida 2020)
- P & O Ports v. Continental Stevedoring (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)
- POLO HOLDINGS v. Village of Wellington (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)
- Connell v. Floyd (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)
- Swartsel v. Publix Super Markets, Inc. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)
- Hales v. Advanced Systems Design, Inc. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Brian ZALIS, Appellant,
v.
M.E.J. RICH CORP., a New Jersey corporation, Slark Corp., a Delaware corporation, and Edward Priore, Appellees.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
*1290 Franklin L. Zemel and Teri L. Di Giulian of Broad and Cassel, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
Peter Ticktin and Caron Speas of Scholl, Ticktin & Associates, P.A., Boca Raton, for appellee Edward Priore.
PER CURIAM.
The plaintiffs sued the defendant for, inter alia, filing false allegations of domestic violence. The defendant counter-claimed for malicious prosecution. Before trial, the defendant offered to settle the lawsuit for $20,000 under the condition that the parties exchange mutual releases that neither the plaintiff nor any firm associated with him would bring any future action against the defendant or anyone associated with him. The plaintiff refused. Zalis subsequently won a $105,000 jury verdict and made a motion for attorneys' fees pursuant to section 768.79 of the Florida Statutes.
The trial court found the condition in the settlement offer to be invalid and denied the motion for attorneys' fees. The defendant appeals.
Section 768.79 of the Florida Statutes requires that offers of judgment state with particularity the amount offered to settle a claim for punitive damages. The section creates "penalties" for the declining party's failure to accept the offer and end the litigation. Abbott & Purdy Group Inc. v. Bell, Jr., 738 So.2d 1024, 1026 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).
Under Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.442(c), proposals for settlement must state with particularity any relevant conditions, state the total amount of the proposal and state with particularity all nonmonetary terms of the proposal.
The condition that a plaintiff relinquish all rights to sue about anything at any point in the future is intrinsically a condition incapable of being stated with the particularity required under section 768.79 of the Florida Statutes. No reasonable *1291 estimate can be assigned to such a waiver. The defendant's offer simply did not give the plaintiff a determinable value with which to weigh his chances at trial. Though the defendant seems to fear future actions, there are other mechanisms to counteract such problems, such as the defendant's jury verdict of $105,000 for malicious prosecution.
If the condition is invalid, it follows that the whole offer is invalid as well. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motion for attorneys' fees.
AFFIRMED.
GUNTHER, WARNER and GROSS, JJ. concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.