Smith L. Watkins v. Richard Corbett, Jennifer Corbett, and Britannia Building Consultants of Pasco County, Inc.
The court affirmed the denial of Watkins's attorney's-fee motion, holding that a joint proposal for settlement that fails to apportion the amount attributable to each offeree is invalid under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442(c)(3). It held there is no tenancy-by-the-entireties exception to the apportionment requirement and expressly disagreed with the Fourth District's contrary decision in Mackensen v. Trace Elements.
Key facts
- Richard and Jennifer Corbett sued Smith Watkins under Johnson v. Davis, alleging she fraudulently induced them to buy her home by failing to disclose known defects.
- Watkins prevailed and then moved for attorney's fees based on a joint proposal for settlement she had served on both Corbetts under section 768.79 and Rule 1.442.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Holdings
- A joint proposal for settlement must state the amount and terms attributable to each offeree under Rule 1.442(c)(3); that provision implements a substantive requirement of section 768.79…
- +2 more holdings with a free trial
Why it matters
Reinforces the bright-line rule that any joint proposal for settlement must apportion the amount attributable to each offeree, with no exception for married couples holding property as tenants by the entireties. The… — full analysis with a trial
Read the full opinion, holdings & search — free for 30 days
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision — in your hands.
- Search every tracked Florida decision in seconds
- Save, tag & file the cases that matter into your own library
- Read the full plain-English analysis and holdings
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.