- within Litigation and Mediation & Arbitration topic(s)
- in Canada
- within Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration and Intellectual Property topic(s)
- with readers working within the Basic Industries, Metals & Mining and Pharmaceuticals & BioTech industries
Another Florida appellate court has narrowly applied Florida's Offer of Judgment Statute, section 768.79, emphasizing statutory adherence in the determination of entitlement to attorneys' fees. The Fourth District Court of Appeal in Cornelius v. Haywood, No. 4D2024-2185 (Fla. 4th DCA Oct. 15, 2025), held that the statute does not apply if the legal action includes any claim for equitable relief, even if the settlement proposal targets only the monetary damages claim.
The Fourth District's opinion follows a recent decision by the Sixth District Court of Appeal, Massey Construction Group v. Alex Finch, P.A.(Fla. 6th DCA Nov. 14, 2025), holding that the offer of judgment statute cannot be used to shift responsibility for fees in disputes involving the enforcement of an attorney charging lien. The Sixth District reasoned that a charging lien proceeding (even though brought within another proceeding) is equitable in nature, not a demand for damages, and thus, under the statute's plain language, section 768.79 does not apply.
These rulings suggest that courts are shifting away from the "narrow exception" that previously allowed some flexibility in mixed-claim cases.
What is the Controlling Precedent Regarding Mixed Claims in Florida?
Case law interpreting the Offer of Judgment Statute relies on the phrase in section 768.79, Florida Statutes: "In any civil action for damages." The Florida Supreme Court previously affirmed in Diamond Aircraft Indus., Inc. v. Horowitch, 107 So. 3d 362 (Fla. 2013) that this language excludes lawsuits seeking both monetary damages and equitable relief (e.g., specific performance or injunctions).
The crucial question left unanswered by that precedent, and one often relied upon by litigants seeking a fee award, was whether a party could still utilize the statute by targeting only the damages claim when the equitable claim remained pending.
Why Did the Fourth District Rule the Proposal Inapplicable in Cornelius v. Haywood?
The Cornelius case is significant because the Offeror explicitly attempted to separate the damages from the equitable claim.
The Failed Strategy
In Cornelius, the opposing party asserted a counterclaim with two counts: a monetary damages claim (tortious interference) and an equitable claim (undue influence to set aside asset transfers). The offeror served a Proposal for Settlement directed only at the monetary claim for $1,000, leaving the equitable claim pending. The offeror argued that since the proposal addressed the distinct damages count, the statute should apply.
The Court's Reasoning: The Entire Action Must Conform
The Fourth District Court of Appeal denied the fee award, holding that the Proposal for Settlement was not enforceable when the entire civil action was not purely for damages. The court emphasized that section 768.79(7) applies to the "civil action" as a whole, not just to individual monetary claims within it, as the legislature provided no language for its application "in part."
The statute requires the trial court to compare the offer against the final "judgment obtained." If significant equitable claims remained pending, the court would face the logistical flaw of having to assign a monetary value to the equitable relief to perform the required comparison. Furthermore, an offer that fails to resolve all significant claims may contradict the statute's primary legislative purpose: to encourage the full, early resolution of the entire case, not just a portion of it.
Cornelius and Massey Construction Suggest a New Trend
The holding in Cornelius marks a shift from prior case law indicating that courts would look at the true nature of the claim to determine if section 768.79 applies. This prior, more flexible approach allowed courts to uphold a Proposal for Settlement or Offer of Judgment in a mixed-claim lawsuit if the equitable relief sought was merely incidental or secondary to the predominant claim for monetary damages.
These rulings raise the question of how much Florida courts will still apply the narrow exception, especially when the equitable claim is more than trivial.
| If the Action Includes... | The Proposal for Settlement is... | Controlling Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Monetary Damages Only | Enforceable | Pure damages action. |
| Monetary Damages + Equitable Claim | Likely Not Enforceable | Though the entire action is not a "civil action for damages," courts may or may not apply the exception for incidental or secondary claims for equitable relief. |
| Equitable Relief Only (e.g., lien enforcement) | Not Enforceable | The proceeding's nature is equitable, not damages. |
The Risk of Inapplicability
For litigants, the primary risk is that the fee-shifting mechanism embedded in the proposal will be deemed inapplicable, and the offeror will not be entitled to recover attorneys' fees under Section 768.79, Florida Statutes, regardless of the final judgment amount.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
