My article on changes to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure in 2011. Everything an attorney needs to know about the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure for the new year.
2012 UPDATE ON THE FLORIDA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
Reply
Tag Archives: litigation
Jones v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc. – Proposal for Settlement
My colleague, Perry Adair, writes on Becker and Poliakoff’s Business Litigation Perspectives Blog, about a recent decision from the Fourth DCA regarding Proposals for Settlement:
The Proposal summarized the contemplated release thusly: “[Jones] will execute a full release of liability in favor of Publix Supermarket Inc., a Florida Corporation and it’s [sic] affiliated insurance company, and a Stipulation for Voluntary Dismissal.” The trial court felt that was not a sufficient summary.
. . .
The Jones opinion closes with the court acknowledging it is the preferred practice for a Proposal to set forth the terms of a release particularly either within the Proposal or by attaching the proposed release. Nevertheless, on the Jones facts, the Proposal was found enforceable.
The time has come to amend the Proposal rule to eliminate this type of uncertainty. Clearly, it is the best practice to attach to the Proposal all documents that are to be signed if the Proposal is accepted. So let’s put that in the rule.
Jones v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 36 Fla. L. Weekly D1966 (4th DCA Sept. 7, 2011)
Hollywood Mobile Estates Lmtd. v. Hollywood Estates Independent Tenant Assoc., Inc.
The Hollywood Estates Independent Tenant Assoc., Inc. is a Chapter 723 Mobile Home Association. In a suit over certain rent payments between Hollywood Mobile and Hollywood Estates, an issue arose over whether the Court had jurisdiction over the individual members of the Hollywood Estates mobile home association such that it could require the members to pay rent into the registry of the Court. The Court found that it did in fact have jurisdiction as Hollywood Estates had brought the suit as a class representative pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. Pro. 1.222. The Association’s averment that it instituted the suit ”in its name on behalf of all the mobile homeowners” was sufficient to establish class representation pursuant to rule 1.222.