← Case library
FL Supreme CourtSeptember 9, 2021Certified question answered in the affirmative; Fourth District decision approved; Perez and Phillips disapproved⭐ Notable

CCM Condominium Association, Inc. v. Petri Positive Pest Control, Inc.

Case No. SC19-861

The Florida Supreme Court resolved a certified conflict over whether post-offer prejudgment interest counts toward the "judgment obtained" under the offer of judgment statute, section 768.79. Adhering to the White v. Steak & Ale formula, the Court held that only amounts (damages, taxable costs, attorney's fees, and prejudgment interest) that would have been included in a judgment entered on the date of the offer are counted, so post-offer prejudgment interest is excluded. It approved the Fourth District's decision and disapproved the pre-White decisions in Perez (3d DCA) and Phillips (1st DCA).

Key facts

  • CCM Condominium Association sued Petri Positive Pest Control in a dispute resolved at trial, resulting in a judgment that the plaintiff compared to a prior settlement offer.
  • A conflict existed among Florida's district courts of appeal regarding whether prejudgment interest accruing after an offer of judgment should count toward the judgment amount when determining attorney's fees eligibility under section 768.79.
  • +2 more key facts with a free trial

Why it matters

This is the definitive Florida Supreme Court statement on how to calculate the 25% threshold under the offer of judgment statute, and it will govern every contested PFS fee motion where prejudgment interest is in play… — full analysis with a trial

🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library

The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.

Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.

Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.