Jared Schmelzer v. Dean Frankel

Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed December 3, 2025.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
Nos. 3D24-1363 & 3D25-0139
Lower Tribunal No. 17-25652-CA-01
________________
Jared Schmelzer,
Appellant,
vs.
Dean Frankel,
Appellee.
Appeals from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Valerie R.
Manno Schurr, Judge.
Lawson Huck Gonzalez, PLLC, and Jason B. Gonzalez, Mathew D.
Gutierrez and Carlos Haag (Tallahassee), for appellant.
Lauri Waldman Ross, P.A., and Lauri Waldman Ross; Friedman &
Friedman, P.A., and John S. Seligman and Zachary Friedman, for appellee.
Before FERNANDEZ, GORDO and GOODEN, JJ.
PER CURIAM.

2
In these consolidated appeals, Appellant Jared Schmelzer appeals the
final judgment and the order awarding attorney’s fees for a proposal for
settlement he rejected in 2018. We affirm the final judgment, but reverse the
order awarding attorney’s fees. 	The proposal for settlement requested a
release, but did not attach a copy or summarize the terms. Under the 2018
statute and rule, this renders the proposal for settlement unenforceable. See
§ 768.79(2), Fla. Stat. (2018); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442(c)(2)(D) (2018); State
Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Nichols, 932 So. 2d 1067, 1079 (Fla. 2006)
(explaining 	proposal 	for 	settlement 	must 	either 	attach 	the 	release 	or
sufficiently summarize its terms); Gonzalez v. Nobregas, 357 So. 3d 193,
196 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (“Most notably, the proposals require the plaintiff to
execute a release but fail to attach or describe the release with sufficient
detail.”); see also Mix v. Adventist Health Sys./Sunbelt, Inc., 67 So. 3d 289,
292 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part.