The Florida Supreme Court Just Invalidated a Large Number of Outstanding Settlement Proposals

The short answer

On July 2, 2026, the Florida Supreme Court held that a joint proposal for settlement must apportion the amount among the parties, and eliminated the exception some courts had recognized for proposals addressing a single unified claim. Any outstanding unapportioned joint proposal is now unlikely to support a fee award, and this is worth checking against every open file this week.

Why it comes up

The proposal for settlement is the principal fee-shifting device in Florida civil litigation, and it is how most cases get valued. Rule 1.442 requires that a proposal made by or to multiple parties state the amount and terms attributable to each party. Some courts had excused apportionment where the claim was unified and indivisible.

What the court held

The case arose from a residential renovation dispute. The owners sued a design company that had left the job; the company counterclaimed. Before trial the owners served a joint, unapportioned proposal of $10,000. The Fourth District held the proposal valid under the unified claim exception.

The Florida Supreme Court quashed that decision and approved the contrary decision of the Second District, holding that the rule requires apportionment in every joint proposal, whether or not the claim is unified.

Our take: this is a housekeeping emergency, not an academic development

Fee-shifting rules are technical and it is tempting to treat a decision like this as a detail. It is not. A proposal for settlement is often the single most valuable piece of paper in a case, because the prospect of fee exposure is what moves a defendant. A proposal that turns out to be invalid does not merely fail to shift fees. It removes the leverage the case was being litigated on, usually at the moment the case is being valued for settlement or trial.

The joint proposals that are now invalid are common in this firm's practice areas: spouses jointly asserting a construction defect claim, an association together with individual unit owners, affiliated developer entities, a contractor and its surety, business partners suing jointly.

The fix is simple where the proposal can still be reissued: state a dollar amount for each offeror and each offeree. The problem is the proposals already served, where the acceptance period has run and the case is heading to trial on the assumption that fee exposure attaches. Those need to be identified now, and in some cases served again.

What it means practically

Audit every open file for outstanding proposals for settlement involving more than one party on either side. Where the proposal is unapportioned, assume it will not support a fee award and decide whether a new, properly apportioned proposal should be served. Where the deadline has passed, the case may need to be revalued.

When to call a lawyer

Now, if you have a pending case with an outstanding joint proposal. This is a deadline-sensitive problem.

Sources

●      Trace Elements, Inc. v. Mackensen, No. SC2024-1274 (Fla. July 2, 2026), via Justia

Disclaimer

This post discusses publicly reported legal developments for general informational purposes. It is not legal advice, it does not create an attorney client relationship, and it does not reflect the firm's position in any pending matter. Outcomes depend on the specific facts and the governing law of the relevant jurisdiction.