Appeals -- Second-tier certiorari review of circuit court appellate
division order reversing hearing officer's determination that respondent
was in violation of County Code -- Circuit court applied correct law in
determining whether hearing officer's findings were supported by
competent substantial evidence and in finding that hearing officer had
denied respondent due process -- Circuit court improperly remanded case
with instructions to dismiss citation -- Available remedy to circuit
court in granting writ of certiorari was limited to quashing hearing
officer's order, and nothing more. MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, Petitioner, v.
SNAPP INDUSTRIES, INC., Respondent. 3rd District.
Civil procedure -- Amendment of answer -- Trial court abused discretion
in denying defendant's ore tenus motion, made at summary judgment
hearing, to amend answer to assert affirmative defense -- Defendant had
not abused privilege to amend, plaintiff would not be prejudiced by
amendment, and amendment would not be futile. MISHPAJA SHAJINE, INC., et
al., Appellants, v. GRANADA INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Appellees. 3rd
District.
Civil procedure -- Discovery -- Business records -- Examination --
Transport of documents -- Appeals -- Certiorari -- Trial court departed
from essential requirements of the law by requiring party to transport
original corporate documents from California to opposing counsel in
Florida where opposing party did not identify any reason to do so. LE-1,
a Florida Limited Liability Company d/b/a LE-1, a California Limited
Partnership, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM B. TROWER, as Successor Personal
Representative of the Estate of LINDA B. WEISHEIT, Respondent. 4th
District.
Civil procedure -- Discovery -- Depositions -- Former opposing counsel
in pending case -- Trial court properly quashed subpoena and issued
protective order to prohibit defendant from taking deposition of
plaintiff's former counsel where defendant failed to allege or establish
that no other means existed to obtain information sought. CENTRAL
CONCRETE SUPERMIX, INC., Petitioner, v. JOSE A. “PEPE” CANCIO, SR.,
Respondent. 3rd District.
Contracts -- Limitation of actions -- Action for breach of contract
filed against estate of plaintiffs' deceased aunt and uncle alleging
entitlement to “incentive money” which was initially supposed to be
given to the plaintiffs for each year of college they completed pursuant
to incentive program initiated by the deceased, but which was never
distributed and which plaintiffs assumed was being kept under loan-back
provision which stated that plaintiffs could loan the funds back to the
deceased to accrue 10% interest, compounded monthly, that plaintiffs
could then collect at their discretion -- No error in entering final
summary judgment in favor of defendant estate -- For each installment of
incentive money, the right to obtain it vested when each plaintiff
completed a year of college, and thus the statute of limitations began
to run when each installment was due -- Because plaintiffs did not bring
action against estate until more than five years after they had each
completed their last year of college, their actions were barred by the
statute of limitations -- Court rejects argument that statute of
limitations would begin to run only if plaintiffs' demands for payment
were denied -- Lend-back provision of contract required plaintiffs to
communicate their election of the provision to the deceased -- Because
neither plaintiff communicated their election of the lend-back provision
the provision was not invoked -- Even assuming lend-back provision had
been triggered, contract ended one year after each plaintiff's
respective graduation. JOHN P. WOODWARD, and ROBERT C. WOODWARD,
Appellants, v. TIMOTHY J. MORELL, in his capacity as Personal
Representative of THE ESTATE OF MILDRED W. OLSON, Appellee. 4th
District.
Dissolution of marriage -- Child custody -- Modification -- Change in
circumstances -- Magistrate's report and recommendation -- Former
husband's modification petition seeking change in parental
responsibility and time-sharing based, in part, on incidents involving
former wife and her boyfriend -- Evidence supported magistrate's finding
that there had been a substantial change in circumstances based on
former wife's behaviors, her relationship with her boyfriend, and
removal of children from former wife's “temporary care” during a
dependency case -- Evidence supported magistrate's conclusion that,
while removal of children from former wife during dependency proceedings
was temporary, a substantial change in circumstances had occurred based
on former wife's volatile relationship with her boyfriend which
continued beyond the conclusion of dependency proceedings -- Trial court
erred as a matter of law in concluding that no substantial change in
circumstances had occurred and in granting wife's exceptions to
magistrate's report on that basis -- Remand with directions to enter
order adopting report and recommendations of magistrate. P.D.V-G.,
Appellant, v. B.A.V-G., Appellee. 2nd District.
Dissolution of marriage -- Injunctions -- Freezing accounts -- Trial
court abused its discretion by exceeding the scope of wife's requested
relief for a freeze of marital accounts when it ordered husband's
individual bank accounts to be placed in both parties' names -- Issue
was not tried by consent. AJAY KUMAR DODDAPANENI, Appellant, v. CANDACE
ELAINE DODDAPANENI, Appellee. 5th District.
Dissolution of marriage -- Magistrates -- Report and recommendations --
Exceptions -- Trial court abused its discretion by summarily denying
former wife's exceptions to magistrate's report and recommendations
based upon wife's failure to file transcript of hearing before the
magistrate within 45 days allotted and ordered by court -- Hearing on
exceptions is mandatory, and transcript is required only “if necessary
for the court's review” -- Where exceptions raise pure issues of law,
such as whether magistrate's report and recommendations improperly
modified parties' property rights as previously determined by final
judgment of dissolution, transcript would not be necessary -- Remand for
trial court to hold hearing and consider exceptions on the merits.
ROSEMITA JEAN, Appellant, v. JOSUE JEAN, Appellee. 2nd District.
Insurance -- Coverage -- Venue -- Forum selection clause -- Ambiguity --
Trial court erred in transferring action to Miami-Dade County where
automobile insurer has its headquarters based on determination that
policy's forum selection clause, which stated that any legal action
against insurer to determine coverage under the policy “shall be filed
and maintained in the county where the policy was issued,” mandated
exclusive venue in that county -- Forum selection clause in policy is
reasonably interpreted as not restricting venue to Miami-Dade County
where policy failed to define “issued” and contained no terms expressly
mandating venue exclusively in Miami-Dade County. THOMAS ROBLES,
Appellant, v. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. 1st
District.
Insurance -- Homeowners -- Appraisal -- Trial court did not err in
determining that policy's appraisal provision clearly and unambiguously
applied to claim by insured's assignee for water mitigation services --
Policy provided that either party could demand appraisal to resolve
“disagreement regarding the amount of the covered loss,” and it was
undisputed that water mitigation services performed by assignee were
part of the amount of the covered loss. EXPRESS DAMAGE RESTORATION, LLC,
etc., Appellant, v. CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, Appellee.
3rd District.
Insurance -- Homeowners -- Preferred Contractor Endorsement -- Where
insurer elected to repair hurricane damage to insured home under
Preferred Contractor Endorsement, and insured failed to provide a
compliant sworn proof of loss and completed his own repairs to home,
thereby preventing insurer from completing repairs under Preferred
Contractor Endorsement, trial court erred in entering judgment requiring
insurer to pay appraisal amount -- Insured breached policy by failing
to fulfill post-loss obligations and hiring his own contractor to
perform repairs. PEOPLE'S TRUST INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v.
ALEJANDRO AMARO, Appellee. 3rd District.
Mortgage foreclosure -- Relief from judgment -- Void judgment --
Foreclosure judgment in favor of junior mortgagee was properly found to
be void as to senior mortgagee whose mortgage had been recorded before
that of junior mortgagee -- Trial court erred in finding that motion to
vacate judgment was not timely filed, as party may move to vacate void
judgment at any time -- However, order denying motion to vacate judgment
is affirmed, as section 702.036, Florida Statute, barred court from
vacating judgment where vacation of judgment would adversely impact
quality and character of title of property which had been purchased by
third parties after foreclosure sale. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Appellant,
v. CHI PENG TAN, BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., as assignee of FIRST MAGNUS
FINANCIAL CORPORATION, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.,
Acting solely as Nominee for FIRST MAGNUS FINANCIAL CORPORATION, an
Arizona Corporation, SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORPORATION, SOUTHERN
CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC., PRECISION U.S.A., INC., PARK TOWER
ASSOCIATION, INC., NISSIM SHANI and MICHELE SHANI, Appellees. 4th
District.
Torts -- Automobile accident -- Comparative negligence -- Summary
judgment -- Appeals -- Mootness -- Action brought against plaintiffs'
insurer to recover damages stemming from two separate rear-end
collisions involving plaintiffs within a two-week period -- Argument
that trial court erred by not granting plaintiffs' motion for summary
judgment on issues of liability and plaintiff driver's comparative
negligence in causing the accidents is moot where issues were tried
before a jury, and evidence authorized jury's verdict -- Argument that
evidence was insufficient to allow jury to apportion negligence to
plaintiff driver for failing to mitigate his business losses and his
pain was not preserved for appeal where plaintiffs failed to move for a
directed verdict on issue at close of evidence at trial -- Even if trial
court improperly allowed mitigation factors to enter comparative
negligence equation, result appears to be harmless where jury's
apportionment of negligence to plaintiff driver can be attributed to
evidence that plaintiff driver helped cause rear-end collisions by
driving forward then suddenly stopping his vehicle. ROY STRICKLAND and
KATHRYN STRICKLAND, Appellants, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Appellee. 1st District.
Torts -- Automobile accident -- Rear end collision -- Successor judge
who did not preside over trial erred in granting directed verdict in
favor of defendant where there was competent substantial evidence to
support jury's verdict that defendant was negligent and to support
jury's rejection of defendant's defense that he unexpectedly lost
consciousness or experienced syncope prior to collision. KAREN
HERNANDEZ, etc., Appellants, v. SHULI ANDREW MISHALI, Appellee. 3rd
District.
Torts -- Discovery -- Plaintiff failed to meet his burden to establish
reversible error in trial court's order granting defendant's motion for
protective order and denying plaintiff's motion to compel depositions
where plaintiff has failed to provide transcript of hearing during which
discovery motions were discussed -- Summary judgment -- Claim that
trial court erred in denying plaintiff's motion to continue summary
judgment hearing was not preserved for appellate review where plaintiff
never obtained an order denying his motion to continue hearing. HENRY
TIEN, Appellant, v. AKERMAN LLP (and the terminated AKERMAN, SENTERFITT
& EIDSON, P.A.), Appellees. 3rd District.
Torts -- False arrest -- Municipal corporations -- Trial court properly
entered summary judgment for defendant city on claim of false arrest
where city police officers had probable cause to arrest plaintiff for
obstruction without violence -- Where plaintiff had been called by
police to pick up her son who was being detained for trespassing at a
theater, after arriving at scene plaintiff continued to videotape and
audiotape officers after being told to stop and obstructed officers'
investigation and processing of her son's detention, there was probable
cause for her arrest for obstruction without violence. SHARRON TASHA
FORD, Appellant, v. CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, a Florida municipal
corporation, Appellee. 4th District.
Torts -- Jurors -- Challenge -- Trial court erred in denying plaintiff's
motion to excuse prospective juror who specifically stated that his
previous negative experience with a similar type of claim in an accident
involving juror's son made it difficult for juror to remain impartial
in his evaluation of facts and evidence in plaintiff's case -- Juror's
later answer that he would keep an open mind because “every case is
different” was not sufficient to rehabilitate juror -- New trial
required where plaintiff was forced to use peremptory challenge against
this prospective juror and trial court later denied plaintiff's request
for additional peremptory challenge of juror over whom plaintiff
expressed concern. ALEJANDRA RIVAS, Appellant, v. ALICIA SANDOVAL,
Appellee. 3rd District.
Torts -- Negligence -- Excessive use of force -- Duty of care --
Amendment of complaint -- Appeals -- Action alleging that detention
officers used excessive force during incident in which plaintiff was
restrained and seriously injured after inmate medical services failed to
conduct a mental evaluation -- Trial court erred in dismissing
negligence counts against sheriff -- Plaintiff alleged an independent,
common law duty of reasonable care by sheriff and the detention officers
charged with his supervision -- Although plaintiff's negligence count
did reference sheriff's use of force policy which does not create an
independent duty of care, plaintiff's complaint stated a cause of action
against sheriff for negligently failing to fulfill its independent duty
of care because the detention officers allegedly used excessive force
-- Sovereign immunity does not bar action against sheriff where
allegations appear to be regarding sheriff's negligence in performance
of established duties and failure to follow the policies already
established -- These are operational level activities for which sheriff
is not immune from suit -- No error in dismissing negligence claims
against inmate medical services which alleged that inmate medical
services had breached duties imposed upon it through its contract with
the sheriff -- Contract clearly provides that it creates no right or
cause of action to a third party -- Plaintiff waived any claim that he
was entitled to amend his complaint for a third time because he failed
to request leave to amend before or after court dismissed the complaint.
CHARLES WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. GREGORY TONY, as Sheriff of Broward
County Florida, ARMOR CORRECTIONAL HEALTH SERVICES, INC., and WANDA
LOWES, R.N., Appellees. 4th District.
Torts -- Product liability -- Restaurants -- Service of contaminated
food -- Action alleging that raw oysters served by defendant was legal
cause of plaintiff's Guillain-Barré Syndrome -- Trial court erred in
granting defendant's posttrial motion for entry of judgment in
accordance with defendant's motion for directed verdict, which had been
filed in a prior trial that had resulted in a deadlocked jury, based on
determination that plaintiff's expert's testimony was based on
impermissible inference stacking -- Defendant was required to move for
directed verdict during second trial where parties did not stipulate
that defendant's motion for directed verdict made during the prior trial
would carry over to the second trial -- Additionally, motion for
directed verdict made in prior trial could not apply to second trial
where inferences identified by defendant in its motion in limine, which
served as the premise for the motion for directed verdict, were
stipulated facts in second trial -- While the legal theory might have
been the same, the evidence upon which it would have been based was
different -- Even if trial court could have considered posttrial motion
for judgment in accordance with the motion for directed verdict, the
trial court misapplied law with regard to directed verdicts -- Trial
court's findings improperly evaluated testimony in favor of the moving
party rather than the nonmoving party, and either disregarded conflicts
in the evidence or resolved them in favor of defendant -- There was no
stacking of inferences in this case -- Singular inference made by
plaintiff's expert was the ultimate conclusion that GI infection, the
stipulated cause of which was defendant's defective food, caused
plaintiff's GBS -- Because plaintiff's expert did not simply provide a
summary conclusion without a factual basis, jury was entitled to
determine that the defective food was the legal cause of plaintiff's
GBS. ANGEL MARTINEZ and MARIA ELENA MARTINEZ, Appellants, v. LOBSTER
HAVEN, LLC, Appellee. 2nd District.
Wrongful death -- Nursing homes -- Arbitration -- Selection of
arbitrator -- Appeals -- Certiorari -- Petition seeking review of order
compelling plaintiff to select a nominating arbitrator to act along with
defendant's chosen nominating arbitrator for the single purpose of
selecting a sole arbitrator in plaintiff's action against defendant --
Trial court departed from essential requirement of the law in rewriting
parties' agreement in defendant's favor by allowing defendant to choose a
nominator despite having forfeited its right to do so by missing the
express deadline set forth in its own residency agreement -- Trial
court's conclusion that plaintiff's arbitrator selection was somehow
impermissible because it was transmitted near the end of the business
day on the day it was due is not supported by the agreement or any legal
authority -- Relief granted by trial court was not appropriate under
either section 682.031 or 682.04 where defendant presented no good cause
to rewrite agreement, and parties' chosen method of appointing
arbitrators did not fail -- Because plaintiff will be able to challenge
eventual arbitration award on appeal, it cannot establish irreparable
harm -- Petition denied. THE ESTATE OF GRACE QUINN, by and through
BARBARA ECK, Personal Representative, Petitioner, v. CCRC OPCO FREEDOM
SQUARE LLC; BKD TWENTY-ONE MANAGEMENT; BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVING, INC.;
and SHELLY CRADDOCK, ADMINISTRATOR, (AS TO THE INN AT FREEDOM SQUARE),
Respondents. 2nd District.
The Law Lady. For more info about us, click here.
To be added to our email circulation with MUCH, MUCH more law, click here
and specify whether you wish to be added to our CRIMINAL, CIVIL,
or FEDERAL Recent Decisions of Interest.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.