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.
Attorney's fees -- Prevailing party -- Timeliness of motion -- Trial court erred by awarding plaintiff attorney's fees and costs as prevailing party where motion for fees was filed more than thirty days after rendition of underlying final judgment -- Discussion of rule 1.525 and the supreme court's decision in AmerUs Life Insurance Co. v. Lait -- Exception to rule 1.525's thirty-day deadline set forth in AmerUs was not applicable to instant case where, although final judgment expressly stated that plaintiffs were the prevailing party and quoted a contractual provision stating that the prevailing party “shall be entitled to recover attorney's fees,” it was not clear from face of judgment that trial court had determined that plaintiffs were entitled to recover attorney's fees and that its reservation of jurisdiction was only to determine the amount of fees -- Judgment's reservation of jurisdiction to “consider an award” does not clearly indicate that the only thing left to do is determine an amount -- While it may be inferred that trial court made a determination of entitlement to fees based on the language of the judgment as a whole, appellate court declines to expand AmerUs exception to encompass a judgment that does not explicitly and unequivocally find one side liable for the other's attorney's fees and costs
VIEW OPINION (login required)
Civil procedure -- Discovery -- Interrogatories -- Nonparties -- Financial information -- Rule 1.340, which governs interrogatories, does not extend to nonparties -- An order requiring nonparty to respond to interrogatories constitutes departure from essential requirements of law, causing irreparable harm -- Fact that order at issue required defendants' interrogatory answers to be “executed and notarized” by nonparty experts contravenes rule 1.340, even though interrogatories were not directly served on nonparties -- Order requiring defendants to furnish “any” information relating to nonparty experts' financial relationship with defendants, their attorneys, and insurers encompasses financial and business records -- Absent finding of unusual or compelling circumstances, this type of production exceeds that authorized by rule 1.280 and precedent and creates palpable risk of cat-out-of-the-bag disclosures
VIEW OPINION (login required)
Insurance -- Commercial or residential property -- Citizens Property Insurance Corporation -- Arbitration -- Section 627.351(6)(ll)1. alternative dispute resolution -- Administrative laws -- Appeals -- Nonfinal agency action -- Order entered by administrative law judge denying insured's motion to dispense with arbitration proceeding was not appealable as a nonfinal order determining “entitlement of a party to arbitration” and was not reviewable under rule 9.130, which applies to court orders -- Order is not reviewable under rule 9.100, which provides for nonfinal appeals for agency action under Administrative Procedure Act -- Legislature has expressly provided that alternative dispute resolution proceedings in section 627.351(6)(ll)1. are not considered chapter 120 administrative proceedings
VIEW OPINION (login required)
Insurance -- Homeowners -- Endorsements -- Election to repair -- Preferred contractors -- Unlicensed contractors -- Action alleging that insureds had materially breached policy by failing to sign work authorization form to allow insurer's preferred contractor to perform repairs -- Trial court erred by denying insurer's motion for summary judgment based on its determination that the work authorization contemplated by policy would violate section 489.113 because a majority of repair work concerned a roof, and preferred contractor only held a general contractor's license -- Under both plain statutory language and binding precedent, work authorization would not violate section 489.113 simply because the general contractor lacks a roofing license -- Trial court erred in determining that insurer had breached policy by failing to provide insureds with preferred contractor's licensure documentation where policy merely stated that insurer would instruct preferred contractor to provide licensure documentation and may, at its option, assist contractor by providing the documentation
VIEW OPINION (login required)
Insurance -- Homeowners -- Property damage -- Assignee's action against insurer -- Validity of assignment -- Written, itemized, per-unit cost estimate of services to be performed -- Assignment adequately described specific service to be provided where it incorporated an invoice with an estimated cost for an engineering report with repair plan -- Trial court erred in dismissing complaint with prejudice
VIEW OPINION (login required)
Insurance -- Property damage -- Homeowners -- All-risk policy -- Coverage -- Water damage -- Roof leak -- Exclusions -- Opening not created by covered peril -- Age-related wear and tear -- Endorsement excluding loss caused by water penetrating through roof system unless penetration was a direct result of damage caused by a covered peril clearly precluded coverage for an “ensuing loss” in form of water damage to the home's interior where leak was caused by age-related wear and tear, an explicitly excluded peril -- Assignee failed to present evidence of any exception to exclusion
VIEW OPINION (login required)
Landlord-tenant -- Constructive eviction -- Attorney's fees -- Fees for fees -- Trial court erred by awarding plaintiff attorney's fees which she had incurred while litigating the proper amount of attorney's fees -- Court rejects argument that section 83.67(6) authorized the trial court to award her fees for fees because it classifies attorney's fees as costs -- Interpreting section 83.67(6) to encompass fees for fees would not aid in deterring conduct targeted by the statute because statute already provides for damages and costs, which are a sufficient deterrent to enforce the statute without risking increase in needless litigation -- Plaintiff is not entitled to recover attorney's fees incurred after appellate court determined her entitlement to fees -- Expert fees -- Trial court erred by awarding plaintiff costs of non-testifying expert -- Interest -- Prejudgment -- Trial court erred in calculating prejudgment interest where trial court failed to use interest rate in effect when prejudgment interest was calculated -- Evidence -- Judicial notice -- Hearsay -- Trial court erred by taking judicial notice of affidavits submitted by plaintiff's attorneys over defendant's hearsay objections where affidavits were offered for truth of the matter asserted
VIEW OPINION (login required)
Landlord-tenant -- Eviction -- Default -- Trial court erred in entering default final judgment of eviction without first holding a hearing where tenant had interposed defense of payment of rent and further requested a determination of the amount of rent to be placed in court registry during pendency of action
VIEW OPINION (login required)
Trusts -- Real property -- Ejectment -- Deeds -- Reformation -- Mutual mistake -- Property held by trust conveyed to defendants via deeds which were signed by trustee in his individual capacity -- Trial court did not err by granting summary judgment in favor of defendants on ejectment claim and reforming deeds to change grantor to trustee in his official capacity -- Trial court properly considered parol evidence to effect parties' intent -- Reformation was appropriate where it was undisputed that both trustee and grantees were mistaken, and all made the same mistake in believing that trustee could convey the property as an individual after seeking advice from counsel -- Even if trustee or grantees were negligent in failing to engage in further due diligence beyond consulting an attorney, that would not be sufficient to defeat reformation based on mutual mistake where lack of due diligence did not rise to level of gross negligence
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 -- Driving under influence -- Search and seizure -- Vehicle -- Traffic stop -- Arrest -- Order granting motion to suppress evidence from traffic stop and subsequent DUI investigation is reversed -- Trial court applied wrong legal standard in finding that there was no probable cause for officer to initiate traffic stop -- Standard of law to justify a stop of a motor vehicle is reasonable suspicion -- Stop of defendant's vehicle was valid under reasonable suspicion standard where, although there was a lack of specific and articulable facts to support officer's claim that defendant was speeding, officer did have reasonable suspicion to believe that defendant failed to maintain a single lane in violation of section 316.089(1) -- Discussion of section 316.089(1) -- While defendant's driving pattern did not affect other traffic, a stop is valid for a violation of section 316.089(1) when the driver deviates from his or her lane by more than what was practicable, regardless of whether anyone is endangered -- Officer's uncontroverted testimony that defendant drove between the center and right lane for at least 15 seconds established that vehicle was not driven as nearly as practicable within a single lane -- Trial court's finding that defendant was merging from center lane to right lane to make a turn into parking lot was not supported by competent substantial evidence -- There was reasonable suspicion to detain defendant for DUI investigation following traffic stop where officer testified that defendant failed to maintain a single lane; hit a curb while she was pulling over; had slurred speech, glossy eyes, and smelled of alcohol; and had significant issues locating her driver's license and registration -- These observations, together with defendant's refusal to perform field sobriety exercises, provided probable cause for defendant's arrest for DUI -- Trial court further erred in determining that officer lacked authority to require defendant to submit to breath test outside of his municipal jurisdiction where district court precedent has applied “ongoing investigation exception” to DUI investigations that originate in an officer's municipality but then result in the suspect being transported to a neighboring area outside the city limits for a request for administration of a breath test -- Trial court was required to abide by district court's precedent regardless of holdings in other districts
VIEW OPINION (login required)
Criminal law -- Jury -- Voir dire -- Time limitations -- Trial judge's imposition of a time limitation on voir dire, which provided counsel with less than two minutes per prospective juror, did not constitute per se prejudicial error as a violation of due process rights -- Reasonableness of an imposed time limit on voir dire is dependent on facts of each case -- Time limit imposed by trial court was not an abuse of discretion when considering the context of the limitation, the use of allotted time by defense counsel, and the basis for the objection to the limitation -- Sentencing -- Scoresheet -- Reclassification of offense -- Trial court did not err by reclassifying armed burglary conviction from a level 8 to a level 9 offense where jury found that defendant had committed burglary with battery while carrying a firearm
VIEW OPINION (login required)