Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Bridges v. Newton
Citations: 556 So. 2d 1170; 1990 WL 6496Docket: 89-1193, 89-2232
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; January 29, 1990; Florida; State Appellate Court
Howard Duncan Bridges and Mahi Temple South Florida Fair Association, Inc. appeal a final judgment in a personal injury case brought by Ruth Newton, which included a jury verdict and an award for attorney's fees and costs under section 768.79, Florida Statutes (1987). The court affirms the jury verdict, agreeing with the trial court that Bridges’ response to Newton’s demand for judgment was a counteroffer, and no meeting of the minds was achieved in subsequent negotiations. However, the court reverses the award for attorney's fees and costs, determining that Newton's $250,000 demand was made in bad faith, as she believed it was inadequate and only intended to support a claim for attorney's fees. The court rejects Newton's argument that the bad faith exception in section 768.79(2)(a) applies only to offers, clarifying that it encompasses both offers and demands for judgment. The statute stipulates that if a party is entitled to costs and fees, the court may disallow them if a demand was not made in good faith. Given that Newton’s demand was not intended for acceptance but rather to facilitate a claim for fees, the judge finds it unreasonable to award post-demand attorney's fees. The final judgment for attorney's fees is reversed, while the judgment for costs is affirmed, as Newton is entitled to costs from prevailing at trial regardless of the bad faith determination.