(386) 868-5848

Case Corner – Brenda Cornelius v. Arnetta Haywood, et al.

Case graphic showing a judge’s gavel resting on a dollar bill, representing the appellate case of Brenda Cornelius v. Arnetta Haywood, featured by Boltz Legal.

Jurisdiction: Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal
Case No.: 4D2024-2185
Lower Tribunal Case No.: 502022CA003768XXXX (Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County)
Date: October 15, 2025
Lower Court: Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Hon. Luis Delgado
Panel: Levine, J.; Ciklin, J.; Harper, Bradley G., Associate Judge (concur)
Counsel: Robert J. Hauser and David M. Garten for Appellant; Daniel T. Galo for Appellee Haywood

 

Overview

The Fourth DCA affirmed the denial of attorney’s fees under section 768.79, Florida Statutes (the offer of judgment statute), holding that a proposal for settlement cannot be enforced in a case that includes both equitable relief and monetary damages even if the proposal is directed only to the damages claim. Applying the statute’s plain text (“in any civil action for damages”), the court concluded that the presence of a live equitable claim takes the case outside § 768.79. The court discussed and followed Diamond Aircraft Indus., Inc. v. Horowitch, Palm Beach Polo, and related canons of statutory interpretation (supremacy of the text, omitted case, whole text).

Background & Procedural Posture

  • Plaintiff/Appellant (Cornelius) sued Haywood (individually and as PR of the Estate of Thomas J. Kemp) for defamation and negligent reporting.
  • Counterclaim: Haywood and the decedent’s granddaughter Evans asserted (1) equitable undue influence (to set aside inter vivos transfers and a will) and (2) tortious interference with expected inheritance (money damages).
  • Proposal for settlement: Cornelius served a § 768.79 offer only to the monetary counterclaim (tortious interference), offering $1,000 to each counter plaintiff.
  • Trial: The jury rejected Cornelius’s claims; rejected Haywood’s tortious interference claim; found for Evans on tortious interference and awarded $125,000.
  • Fees motion: Cornelius sought fees from Haywood under § 768.79 based on beating Haywood’s rejected offer (no liability).
  • Trial court: Denied fees, ruling § 768.79 inapplicable because the action included equitable and legal claims.
  • Appeal: Cornelius argued that a damages only proposal should still be enforceable.

Issues Presented

  1. Does § 768.79 apply where a case seeks both equitable relief and damages, if the proposal addresses only the damages claim?
  2. If not, was the trial court correct to deny fees to the offeror who prevailed on the damages claim against the offeree?

Holding

Yes, the trial court was correct. Section 768.79 applies only to a “civil action for damages.” When a pending action includes equitable relief, § 768.79 does not apply, regardless of whether the proposal targets just the damages count. The order denying fees is affirmed.

Court’s Reasoning

1) The Text Controls: “In any civil action for damages”

The statute’s opening phrase is dispositive. It says “in any civil action for damages,” not “in any civil action containing a claim for damages” or “as to a damages claim.” Reading the text as written, the Legislature limited the statute’s operation to cases wholly sounding in damages.

2) Consistency with Precedent

  • Diamond Aircraft, 107 So. 3d 362 (Fla. 2013): § 768.79 does not apply to actions with both equitable and monetary claims when the offer seeks a global release.
  • Palm Beach Polo, 22 So. 3d 140 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009): A proposal resolving all claims is invalid where the complaint includes non damages claims; § 768.79 is confined to damages-only cases.
  • The court also recognized the narrow “true relief is monetary” exception (MYD Marine Distrib., Inc. v. Int’l Paint Ltd., 187 So. 3d 1285 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)), but held it inapplicable here because the equitable undue-influence claim was actually pursued and remained live during litigation.

3) Omitted-Case and Whole Text Canons

  • Omitted case: Courts do not add words. The Legislature did not include suits for equitable relief within § 768.79; courts must respect that omission.
  • Whole text: The statute requires comparing the “amount of the offer” to the “judgment obtained” (§ 768.79(7)). There is no method to quantify equitable relief for this calculus. Even if a proposal targets only damages, a judgment later granting equitable relief would force courts to impute a monetary value to it, contrary to the statute’s design and Diamond Aircraft’s rationale.

4) Purpose of § 768.79

The statute encourages early, global resolution. Allowing fees for a damages only proposal while equitable claims continue would not conserve resources or end litigation undermining the statute’s purpose.

Practical Implications

  • Litigators: If your case includes any non-monetary claims (injunction, declaratory relief, constructive trust, rescission, undue influence, probate remedies, etc.), a § 768.79 proposal is generally unavailable unless you can show the “true relief” sought was exclusively monetary (and actually pursued that way).
  • Fee Strategy: Consider alternative fee hooks contractual fee clauses, sanctions, or targeted motions. If you want § 768.79 leverage, evaluate whether you can resolve or dismiss equitable counts (or stipulate they’re not pursued) before serving a proposal.
  • Pleading Discipline: Plaintiffs who add equitable counts for leverage may inadvertently block § 768.79 fee exposure. Defendants seeking fee leverage should assess moving to strike or narrow non-monetary claims early.
  • Estate/Probate Context: Claims like undue influence or will challenges are quintessentially equitable; mixing them with tort-style damages (e.g., tortious interference with expected inheritance) will typically defeat § 768.79 usage.

Key Authorities Cited

  • § 768.79, Fla. Stat. (Offer of Judgment/Fees in civil actions for damages)
  • Diamond Aircraft Indus., Inc. v. Horowitch, 107 So. 3d 362 (Fla. 2013)
  • Palm Beach Polo Holdings, Inc. v. Equestrian Club Estates POA, 22 So. 3d 140 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)
  • MYD Marine Distrib., Inc. v. Int’l Paint Ltd., 187 So. 3d 1285 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (narrow “true relief is monetary” exception)
  • Winter Park Imports, Inc. v. JM Family Enters., 66 So. 3d 336 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (mechanics of “judgment obtained”)

For Readers & Clients (Next Steps)

If your dispute blends equity and damages, plan your settlement posture and fee exposure accordingly. Consider early case-management steps to keep or remove § 768.79 from the board, depending on your goals.

Helpful primers:

Bottom Line

Section 768.79 is a damages only tool. When equitable relief is part of the pending action, an offer of judgment even one carefully confined to the damages count won’t trigger fees. To use § 768.79, the case must truly be a “civil action for damages” in pleadings, practice, and outcome.

Today’s Insight

“The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name.”

— Confucius

Call your case what it is: if it’s not purely for damages, § 768.79 won’t apply.

Florida-Offer-of-Judgment-Equitable-Relief-Attorney-Fees-CaseDownload