Lexplug logoLexplug

Knealing v. Puleo

Supreme Court of Florida
675 So. 2d 593, 1996 WL 336080 (1996)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A legislative statute that alters the time limits for making and accepting offers of judgment, without creating an independent substantive right to attorney fees, is procedural in nature and violates the constitutional separation of powers by infringing upon the Supreme Court's exclusive rulemaking authority.


Facts:

  • Rhonda Knealing was involved in an automobile accident with Ernest and Maria Puleo on May 14, 1990.
  • The parties participated in a court-ordered mediation regarding the dispute on June 16, 1993, which resulted in an impasse.
  • Fifteen days after the failed mediation and eleven days before the scheduled trial, the Puleos served an offer of judgment to Knealing for $15,001.
  • Knealing rejected the Puleos' settlement offer.
  • The dispute proceeded to trial where the jury returned a verdict for Knealing.
  • After adjustments for collateral sources, Knealing's final net judgment was $5,000.
  • The final judgment amount was more than 25 percent less than the settlement offer the Puleos had previously made.

Procedural Posture:

  • Knealing filed a personal injury lawsuit against the Puleos in the trial court.
  • Following a jury trial, the trial court entered a final judgment for Knealing.
  • The Puleos moved for attorney fees and costs in the trial court based on their rejected offer of judgment.
  • The trial court denied the Puleos' motion, ruling the offer was untimely because it did not provide the required 30-day acceptance period.
  • The Puleos appealed the denial of fees to the Fourth District Court of Appeal.
  • The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court, holding that Section 44.102 permitted the shortened timeline for the offer.
  • The Fourth District Court of Appeal certified a question regarding the statute's constitutionality to the Supreme Court of Florida.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does Section 44.102, Florida Statutes (1993), which modifies the timeframes for serving offers of judgment following court-ordered mediation, constitute an unconstitutional legislative intrusion into the Supreme Court's rulemaking authority?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice Wells

Yes, the statute represents an unconstitutional intrusion by the Legislature. The Court reasoned that Section 44.102(6) does not create a substantive right to attorney fees; rather, it merely alters the procedural time limits for making and accepting offers of judgment established in Section 768.79 and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442. Under the Florida Constitution, the Supreme Court has exclusive authority over rules of practice and procedure, while the Legislature has authority over substantive law. Because this statute attempts to regulate the procedural mechanisms (timing) of litigation without providing a substantive basis for the award, it violates the separation of powers doctrine. Consequently, the offer of judgment in this case was invalid because it did not comply with the thirty-day timeframe required by the valid, applicable rule.


Dissenting - Justice Overton

No, the dissenting justice disagreed with the majority's conclusion but did not provide a written opinion explaining the reasoning in this specific text.



Analysis:

This decision reinforces the strict separation of powers doctrine in Florida, specifically regarding the boundary between legislative statutes and judicial rules. It clarifies that while the Legislature may create substantive rights (such as the right to attorney fees), it cannot dictate the procedural mechanics—such as time limits—for enforcing those rights in court. This ruling invalidates Section 44.102(6) and affirms that offers of judgment must strictly comply with the procedural timelines adopted by the Supreme Court. Future litigants must adhere to the 30-day acceptance window provided in Rule 1.442/Section 768.79, even after mediation fails.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Knealing v. Puleo (1996)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"