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.

Bond validation -- Relief from judgment -- Denial -- Appeals -- Circuit courts did not err by denying motions filed under rule 1.540 which sought to vacate final judgments validating certain bonds -- Discussion of chapter 75 and rules 1.540 and 1.010 -- Supreme court has jurisdiction to consider a denial of rule 1.540 motions in this setting -- Statutory language of section 75.08 is broad enough to authorize court to review post-judgment orders entered in bond validation action despite fact that final judgment was entered more than thirty days prior to appeal -- Chapter 75 forecloses the application of motions filed under 1.540 in bond validation proceedings -- Bond validation judgments not challenged after the time for appeal expires cannot be collaterally attacked
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Civil procedure -- Dismissal -- Vexatious litigant -- Trial court erred in dismissing action based on finding that plaintiff was a vexatious litigant -- While section 68.093(4) authorizes a court to prohibit a vexatious litigant from commencing, pro se, any new action in the courts without first obtaining leave of the administrative judge, it does not authorize a court to dismiss a pending action -- Trial court's designation of plaintiff as a vexatious litigant is affirmed
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Contracts -- Employment -- Limited liability companies -- Valuation -- Evidence -- Judgment notwithstanding verdict -- Appeals -- Action alleging that defendants breached employment contract by not paying out profit-share distributions after plaintiffs' termination, and a letter of intent by failing to transfer fifty percent of ownership in company to plaintiffs after certain conditions were met -- Judgment on claim involving breach of employment contract is affirmed -- Plaintiffs waived arguments related to trial court's interpretation of the contract by raising issues for first time in their reply brief -- Trial court erred by granting defendants' motion for JNOV based on finding that plaintiffs' claims for damages relating to letter of intent were not supported by competent substantial evidence because the plaintiffs failed to establish competent evidence of the value of the business on the date alleged breach occurred -- Defendant owner's own testimony provided competent, substantial evidence of damages where, although owner did not directly opine as to value of company on date of breach, owner had testified that company had retained its purchase value in the year prior to breach, that the company's profitability had improved by date of breach, and that company had made “significant strides” under the plaintiffs' leadership -- Owner offered an informed assessment of company's value in his capacity as owner consistent with the long-standing principle that an owner of property is qualified to testify to the property's value -- Based on owner's testimony, jury could reasonably infer that value on date of breach was worth at least as much as owner's stated purchase price -- Trial court properly rejected plaintiff officer's testimony regarding value of company where plaintiff offered testimony that was not merely based on his management of company, but rather was based on a specialized valuation formula in the industry, thereby venturing beyond the scope of permissible lay opinion -- Because jury awarded damages exceeding amount proven by defendant owner's testimony, appropriate remedy would have been to grant a remittitur or new trial on damages
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Contracts -- Investment agreement -- Options -- Timeliness of exercise -- Action filed by investors against company and personal guarantor after guarantor denied investors' request to refund their contribution in accordance with contractual provision giving investors the option to recoup their contribution six months after payment with no stated end date -- Trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of investors where material issue of fact existed as to whether investors had exercised option within a reasonable time -- Court rejects argument that, under a general contract, reasonable time is implied in place of temporal silence only when latent ambiguity exists -- Reasonable time rule applies regardless of contract form when a contract fails to specify time for performance -- Furthermore, agreement's temporal silence on the length of time by which the investors could exercise the option provision is itself a latent ambiguity -- Remand for trial to determine whether two years was reasonable time for investors to exercise option
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Contracts -- Sales agreement -- Damages -- Limitations -- Reasonableness -- Action stemming from seller's failure to deliver aircraft upon discovering that sale would no longer be profitable -- Trial court erred by granting partial summary judgment in favor of buyer and removing limits on buyer's remedies based on its determination that remedial contract provision was illusory because it allowed seller to both retain the buyer's deposit and sell the aircraft to another person if the buyer defaulted, but permitted buyer to recover only the buyer's inspection costs if the seller defaulted -- Contractual provision was not illusory where it imposed real obligation on both seller and buyer -- Seller's reimbursement of the buyer's inspection costs was a reasonable limitation on damages
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Florida Bar -- Rules -- Amendment -- Authorized business entities
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Florida Bar -- Rules -- Amendment -- Board of Governors of The Florida Bar -- Generally -- Procedures on criminal or professional misconduct; discipline on determination or judgment of guilt of criminal misconduct; discipline on removal from judicial office -- Grievance committee procedures
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Florida Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration -- Amendment -- Amending rules of court
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Florida Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration -- Amendment -- Definitions -- Amending rules of court -- Trial court administration
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Insurance -- Homeowners -- Assignment of benefits -- Validity -- Assignee's action against insurer -- Trial court erred by dismissing assignee's action based on determination that assignment agreement between insured and assignee was invalid and unenforceable because the agreement itself failed to contain the required itemized, per-unit cost estimate -- Agreement and incorporated invoice were sufficiently detailed to comply with statutory requirements
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Insurance -- Homeowners -- Coverage -- Post-loss obligations -- Prompt notice -- Prejudice -- Trial court erred by denying insureds' motion for directed verdict on affirmative defense alleging that insureds' failure to provide prompt notice of loss had prejudiced insurer -- Insurer did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that fifty-eight-day delay in reporting loss had prejudiced its claim investigation where insurer's first-designated corporate representative testified that insurer's field adjuster was able to determine the property had sustained direct physical loss caused by a water backup during the policy period, and issued payment consistent with the field adjuster's estimate; and unrebutted testimony of insureds established that field adjuster had full, unrestricted access to the property during his inspection, and all of field adjuster's questions were answered -- Testimony of insurer's second-designated corporate representative, which claimed that insurer had no idea what happened on the property during fifty-eight-day delay, was insufficient to establish any prejudice as a matter of law where insurer provided no evidence indicating that property's condition may have changed during that time
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Torts -- Premises liability -- Third-party criminal misconduct -- Off-premises injury -- Duty -- Proximate cause -- Action brought against owner of property used for sale and use of drugs after an individual residing at the property sexually assaulted another resident of the neighborhood at her home -- Dismissal -- Trial court did not err by denying defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, asserting that defendant owed no duty to prevent a third party's criminal actions or to protect other from injuries occurring off its property -- Complaint sufficiently alleged that defendant was liable for allowing a known dangerous condition to flourish at its property when defendant had the means to evict the residents -- Fact that defendant did not own the property where attack occurred or that it did not have control over the instrumentality matters not where defendant had control over who resided in the property and thus had the ability to correct the known dangerous condition but failed to do so -- Directed verdict -- No error in denying defendant's motion for directed verdict -- Lack of proof as to whether the residents of defendant's property were tenants or squatters was irrelevant where defendant still allowed a known dangerous condition to exist, had the means to correct it, and yet failed to do so -- Court rejects argument that drug use and drug deals at the property could not create a reasonable foreseeability that sexual assault might occur -- Evidence was such that reasonable persons could differ as to whether proximate cause was established where evidence established that violent conduct did occur at the property -- Even without the occurrence of actual physical violence at defendant's property, the potential for violence existed based on ongoing drug deals -- Judgment notwithstanding verdict -- Trial court did not err by denying defendant's motion for JNOV alleging that defendant did not know of any drug-related violence or third party's propensity for violence -- There was evidence to support verdict where it was undisputed that drug deals were a continuous problem at the property and defendant was on notice of the continuing drug use and drug deals by the property's residents -- Defendant's lack of awareness of fights on the property did not prevent defendant from owing a legal duty to plaintiff -- Damages -- Setoff -- No error in denying defendant's motion for setoff arguing that plaintiff's settlement with homeowners association and property manager should be applied as a setoff against jury verdict -- Defendant waived any entitlement to setoff where defendant failed to seek to add the other two original defendants to the verdict form as Fabre defendants, failed to assert as an affirmative defense that the other two original defendants were joint tortfeasors, and failed to present evidence at trial that the negligence of the other two original defendants contributed to the attack
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 -- Counsel -- Waiver -- Renewal of offer of counsel at critical stages of proceedings -- Sentencing hearing
VIEW OPINION (login required)