LOG IN
    SELECT A PUBLICATION:
Florida Law Weekly
FLW Supplement
FLW Federal
User Name:
Password:
 


CONTACT
    Toll-free: 800-351-0917
    E-mail us
    Submit Opinions

PLACE AN ORDER
    Print Editions
    Online Editions
    Bound Volumes
    2/24-Hour Online Access


OUR PUBLICATIONS
    Florida Law Weekly
    FLW Supplement
    FLW Federal
    Collected Cases
    Sample FLW Online


RESEARCH
    Cross Citations
    Week In Review
    Rule Revisions
    Review Granted
    Current Issue Index
     Civil Section
     Criminal Section
    2023 Cumulative Index
     Civil Section
     Criminal Section
    Public Reprimands
    Florida Statutes
    Helpful Links



  
Week In Review

Headnotes of selected Florida Supreme Court and District Courts of Appeal cases filed the week of
March 11, 2024 - March 15, 2024

Civil Law Headnotes (Jump to Criminal Law Headnotes)

THESE ARE NOT ALL OF THE CASES RELEASED BY THE COURTS FOR THE WEEK.
To see others not presented here, log in for more comprehensive weekly listings.

Contracts -- Formation -- Settlement agreement -- Enforceability -- Evidence -- Attorney-client privilege -- No error in directing plaintiff to execute settlement agreement and dismiss case -- Court rejects argument that there was no settlement agreement because plaintiff wanted a net settlement of $100,000 instead of the gross $100,000 settlement negotiated by plaintiff's counsel -- Competent substantial evidence supports the trial court's finding that plaintiff's former counsel had clear and unequivocal authority from plaintiff to settle the case for the gross amount of $100,000 -- Trial court's finding that plaintiff did not present any evidence other than his own testimony did not demonstrate that the trial court improperly shifted the burden of proof -- Trial court did not err in finding that communications between the parties established a meeting of the minds -- Emails between attorneys can constitute an enforceable settlement agreement -- Correspondence between the parties' attorneys in instant action showed that no essential terms remained open or subject to future negotiation -- Fact that plaintiff did not sign settlement agreement is not dispositive -- Argument that trial court erred in allowing former counsel to testify over plaintiff's objection to the waiver of his attorney-client privilege was not preserved for appellate review where plaintiff never obtained a ruling on his objection -- Regardless, trial court did not abuse its discretion because plaintiff had waived privilege by discussing confidential communications with his former counsel during plaintiff's testimony -- Additionally, plaintiff waived his attorney-client privilege by claiming that his former counsel lacked authority to settle the case on plaintiff's behalf
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Contracts -- Joint venture -- Settlement agreement -- Enforceability -- Damages -- Election of remedies -- Action stemming from defendants' failure to make payments to plaintiffs as required by the parties' settlement agreement transferring control of holding company created for the parties' joint venture -- Election of remedies doctrine was applicable to defendants' counterclaims which sought both rescission of the settlement agreement and damages for plaintiff's alleged breach -- Trial court did not err in requiring defendants to elect a remedy prior to ruling on parties' claims -- Court rejects argument that an election would only be required if trial court had found for defendants on both rescission and breach of contract counts -- No error in determining that plaintiffs had no obligation to transfer the assets of its subsidiary pursuant to settlement agreement where subsidiary's assets are not mentioned anywhere in agreement -- Furthermore, subsidiary's assets had already been conveyed to holding company where holding company's operating agreement obligated the parties to contribute their subsidiary entities and their assets to the holding company at the beginning of the joint venture -- Implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing did not obligate plaintiffs to deliver assets of subsidiary upon transfer of plaintiff's interest in holding company because the implied covenant of good faith cannot be relied upon to change the express terms of a binding contract -- Trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of defendant corporation's manager on plaintiff's claim for breach of settlement agreement where manager had signed agreement in his individual capacity and on behalf of corporation -- Additionally, settlement agreement provided that purchase price was to be paid by manager and that the terms of the agreement were binding on corporation's managing members -- Trial court erred in reserving jurisdiction over fraudulent inducement counterclaim against plaintiff corporation's owner where trial court had previously dismissed owner as a party to counterclaim -- Because dismissal of plaintiff's corporation's owner was not appealed, dismissal became final and was res judicata
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Landlord-tenant -- Eviction -- Default -- Residential tenant -- Trial court did not err in striking self-represented tenant's answer and entering final default judgment for possession for landlord after tenant deposited rent payments into court registry approximately two and a half hours after deadline set by court order -- Trial court's error in citing section 83.232(5) as a basis for finding that it lacked discretion to alter its deadline was harmless where, although section 83.232(5) does not apply to residential tenancies and trial court generally has discretion to modify its own deadlines under rule 1.090(b)(1), no request seeking enlargement of time was made prior to deadline imposed
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Torts -- Premises liability -- Slip and fall -- Residence -- Independent contractors -- Business invitees -- Open and obvious danger -- Summary judgment -- Action stemming from injuries plaintiff suffered when he slipped on green algae on defendant's deck while walking to defendant's front door to drop off paperwork related to lawn services plaintiff's employer was hired to perform -- Trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of defendant based on determination that plaintiff was the employee of an independent contractor who was injured in the course and scope of performing his contractual duties, and that no reasonable jury could find that the algae was anything but open and obvious -- Plaintiff's injuries were not sustained in the course of performing his contractual duties where plaintiff was merely entering the property and had not yet begun performing lawn services -- Because plaintiff's injuries were not sustained in course of his contractual duties, defendant's duty to plaintiff should have been analyzed under framework governing a landowner's duty to business invitees -- There was a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether the dangerous condition of the deck was open and obvious where plaintiff testified that deck did not look wet and defendant himself was uncertain about the deck's slipperiness -- Additionally, regardless of whether hazard was open and obvious, defendant had a duty to maintain the property in a reasonably safe condition by repairing conditions that defendant anticipates will cause harm -- There was genuine dispute of material fact concerning whether defendant had properly maintained the deck in a reasonably safe condition and whether he should have anticipated that the dangerous condition would cause injury where defendant acknowledged that the deck needed to be maintained during the year and that deck needed to be cleaned at the time of plaintiff's fall, and agreed that the portion of the deck with the algae on it should not have been walked upon
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Torts -- Venue -- Forum non conveniens -- Complaint alleging multiple causes of action stemming from incident in which defendant, a Florida resident, allegedly attacked plaintiff, a Texas resident, after breaking into plaintiff's condominium in Belize -- Trial court erred in granting defendant's motion to dismiss on basis of forum non conveniens in the absence of any sworn affidavits or other sworn evidence in support of the motion -- Discussion of four-pronged Kinney test -- Trial courts generally cannot conduct a meaningful analysis under Kinney if the defendant has not put forth any evidence or proof in support of the motion to dismiss, unless face of complaint itself shows that a forum non conveniens transfer is warranted -- Face of complaint coupled with plaintiff's admission that a prior action had been filed in Belize was insufficient to support dismissal for forum non conveniens -- Although trial court may have properly considered plaintiff's Belize filing in employing Kinney analysis, it was error to make the Belize filing its primary focus -- Trial court erred by failing to accord any deference to plaintiff's forum of choice -- In cases involving a non-resident plaintiff who is a United States citizen, the presumption in favor of the plaintiff's initial choice of forum is always entitled to great deference -- Furthermore, trial court erred by failing to consider defendant's own admission that Florida was a more convenient forum for her than Belize
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal Law Headnotes (Jump to Civil Law Headnotes)

THESE ARE NOT ALL OF THE CASES RELEASED BY THE COURTS FOR THE WEEK.
To see others not presented here, log in for more comprehensive weekly listings.

Criminal law -- Habeas corpus -- Pretrial detention -- Adversary preliminary hearing -- Evidence -- Hearsay -- Statement of child victim -- Trial court erred in admitting out-of-court statements of child victim at defendant's adversary preliminary hearing -- Statements were inadmissible hearsay where child victim did not testify and state offered no evidence that child victim was unavailable as a witness -- Because the statements of the child victim were inadmissible hearsay and there was no other admissible evidence to establish probable cause that an offense had been committed and that the defendant had committed it, defendant is entitled to a release on recognizance
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal law -- Uttering forged instrument -- Grand theft -- Dismissal -- Limitation of actions -- Trial court erred by denying defendant's motion to dismiss information on statute of limitations grounds based on determination that detainer and information were timely filed -- Filing of a detainer is not the equivalent of the process contemplated by section 775.15(4)(b) -- Although information was filed within the three-year statutory period, there is no indication in the record that a capias, summons, or other process was executed as required by statute -- Remand for further proceedings in order for trial court to consider whether any capias, summons, or other appropriate process was executed and whether any delay in doing so was unreasonable
VIEW OPINION (login required)