Sink v. Emerald Hill Owners Ass'n, Inc., 903 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). · Go Syfert
Search
Sink v. Emerald Hill Owners Ass'n, Inc., 903 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
3 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Nichols (fla, 2006-06-01)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Nichols
Fla. · 2006 · confidence medium
Corp. v. Al Teletronics, Inc., 924 So.2d 3, 6 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Dryden v. Pedemonti, 910 So.2d 854, 856 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Palm Beach Polo Holdings, Inc. v. Vill. of Wellington, 904 So.2d 652, 653 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Sink v. Emerald Hill Owners Ass'n, 903 So.2d 1047, 1048 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); Boyd v. Nationwide Mut.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Virginia J. SINK and Deborah Cross, Appellants,
v.
EMERALD HILL OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida Corporation, Appellee.
1D04-0903.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Jun 17, 2005.
903 So. 2d 1047
Per Curiam.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published

W. Dexter Douglass and Thomas P. Crapps, Douglas Law Firm, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellants.

Gary A. Shipman and David H. Milam, Dunlap, Toole, Shipman and Whitney, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

[*1048] PER CURIAM.

Appellants Virginia J. Sink and Deborah Cross appeal an award of attorneys' fees and costs based upon a proposal for settlement made by appellee Emerald Hills Owners Association, Inc., pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442, and section 768.79, Florida Statutes. We reverse because the proposal for settlement was invalid in that it failed to state with sufficient particularity the terms of the release upon which the settlement offer was conditioned. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442(c)(2)(C) & (D) (stating that all relevant conditions and non-monetary terms of the proposal must be stated with particularity); Connell v. Floyd, 866 So.2d 90, 92 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (stating that "a proposal for settlement should be as specific as possible, leaving no ambiguities, so that the recipient can fully evaluate its terms and conditions").

REVERSED.

DAVIS, LEWIS and POLSTON, JJ., concur.