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.
Appeals -- Absence of transcript or suitable discussion -- Affirmance of lower court ruling -- Appellant's last-minute motion for extension of time within which to create a statement of evidence or proceedings pursuant to rule 9.200(b)(5) denied -- Rule 9.200(f)(2)'s requirement that appellant be given “an opportunity to supplement the record” only applies to portions of record that were “omitted” from transmitted record in the first place and does not entitle appellant to an opportunity to supplement the record by creating a substitute for the transcript -- Court notes that appellant was aware that trial transcript might be missing more than six months prior to motion for extension of time -- Dissolution of marriage -- Child custody -- Modification -- Supplemental judgment modifying time-sharing and parental responsibility affirmed in absence of transcript or proper substitute
VIEW OPINION (login required)
Appeals -- Brief -- Citation to non-existent legal authorities -- Citing legal authorities inaccurately -- Order to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed in accordance with Rule 2.515(d)(2), as amended effective June 15, 2026 -- Amended rule applies although initial brief was filed before amendments to rule became effective because requirements and sanctions authority of the amended rule are consistent with those that pre-existed amendments -- Court further acknowledges that Florida's trial courts may apply rule 2.515(2) as amended to documents that were filed in trial courts before amended rule became effective
VIEW OPINION (login required)
Attorney's fees -- Insurance -- Homeowners -- Property damage -- Assignee's action against insurer -- Section 627.7152 allows attorney's fees award where post-loss claims involve assignments based on “the difference between the judgment obtained by the assignee and the presuit settlement offer” -- Statute defines term “judgment obtained” as “damages recovered, if any, but does not include any amount awarded for attorney fees, costs, or interest” -- Settlement between assignee and insurer in instant case was not a “judgment obtained” within meaning of statute -- Discussion of language of parties' agreement -- Denial of assignee's motion for attorney's fees affirmed
VIEW OPINION (login required)
Attorney's fees -- Insurance dispute -- Lodestar -- Contingency risk multiplier -- Costs -- Expert witness fees -- Non-testifying experts -- Trial court did not abuse its discretion in computing amount of lodestar after considering all relevant factors and Rowe and Quanstrom -- Amount was supported by sufficient factual findings -- However, findings as to contingency risk multiplier did not support imposition of highest possible multiplier of 2.5 or, in fact, any multiplier -- Finding that insured's counsel was experienced and competent to take case did not directly address availability of other attorneys in relevant market who had both skills to handle case effectively and would have taken case in absence of contingency fee multiplier -- Amount awarded in costs for fees of two expert witnesses who were retained to prepare case for trial but did not testify reversed -- On remand, trial court to conduct appropriate analysis, make findings based on evidence presented, and omit any fees for non-testifying experts not reasonably necessary for trial preparations
VIEW OPINION (login required)
Contracts -- Construction -- Settlement agreement -- Valid and enforceable settlement agreement existed between property owners and subcontractor hired to perform driveway work because there was an objective manifestation by both parties of assent to the same terms -- Property owners objectively demonstrated their assent by not objecting to the settlement confirmation email in which owners agreed to pay amount of recorded lien and attorney's fees, by sending a check in the negotiated amount and writing “for driveway final payment,” and by replying “ok, thanks, will have to you tomorrow” in response to subcontractor's email with proposed lien release -- Owner's testimony on his subjective intent and state of mind does not overcome the objective, external signs -- The making of a contract depends on the agreement of two sets of external signs, that is, not on the parties having meant the same thing but on their having said the same thing -- Fact that mutual release was not executed or finalized does not prevent formation of a contract or destroy the agreement of the parties -- Subcontractor was entitled to enforcement of settlement
VIEW OPINION (login required)
Contracts -- Performance agreement -- Third-party beneficiaries -- Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act -- Action against recording company and rap artist arising out of rap artist's failure to perform at club after club failed to make second payment in amount required by performance agreement between defendants and booking agency within 48 hours before scheduled performance -- Standing -- Trial court erred in finding that plaintiff, the majority member of limited liability company that operated club, had standing to sue for breach of performance agreement between booking agency and defendants -- Plaintiff was neither party to nor third-party beneficiary of performance agreement, which did not clearly express parties' intent to benefit plaintiff -- Jury instructions -- Substantial performance -- Trial court erred in instructing jury that it could find for plaintiff even if he failed to fully comply with payment terms so long as he showed that he “did all, or substantially all, of the essential things which the contract required him to do” -- Substantial performance applies only when variance from contract terms is inadvertent, unintentional, or unimportant so that work actually performed is substantially what was called for in contract -- In case at issue involving contract between commercial parties in which duty was simply one to make payment in specified amount by certain date, there could be no substantial performance when payment was late and in amount less than required by agreement -- Deceptive and unfair trade practices -- Plaintiff could not pursue damages for violations of FDUTPA where plaintiff was resident of foreign state and alleged FDUTPA violation occurred in foreign state -- Moreover, record supports argument that FDUTPA award was duplicative of damages awarded by jury on breach of contract claim -- Final judgment in favor of plaintiff on breach of contract and FDUTPA claims reversed and remanded
VIEW OPINION (login required)
Corporations -- Closely held corporation -- Judicial dissolution -- Election to purchase rather than dissolve -- Vacation or modification -- Section 607.1436(1) provides that “[i]n a proceeding under s. 607.1430(1)(b), the corporation may elect or, if it fails to elect, one or more shareholders may elect to purchase all shares owned by the petitioning shareholder at the fair value of the shares” and further provides that “[a]n election pursuant to this section shall be irrevocable unless the court determines that it is equitable to set aside or modify the election” -- Statute authorizes a trial court to set aside or modify an election on equitable grounds regardless of whether it is electing party or the petitioning shareholder that raises the matter -- An electing party may state equitable grounds to opt out or modify his election and a petitioning shareholder may state equitable grounds to set aside or modify an election -- Trial court misinterpreted statute when it concluded that only electing shareholders could revoke an election -- Valuation judgment reversed -- Remand for further proceedings to consider whether it is equitable to set aside or modify the election on the facts presented -- Extensive discussion of caselaw from other states
VIEW OPINION (login required)
Probate rules -- Amendments
VIEW OPINION (login required)
Torts -- Premises liability -- Failure to maintain premises in reasonably safe condition and warn of concealed dangers -- Independent contractor exception -- Knowledge of dangerous condition -- Service technician employed by independent contractor injured when, during course of installing automatic door at retail store, he received electric jolt from junction box which was not properly grounded and fell from his ladder to the concrete floor -- Business owner could not use independent contractor defense to avoid its duty to provide safe workplace where evidence was sufficient to establish that owner had constructive knowledge of dangerous junction box condition that it negligently created or negligently approved -- Order denying owner's motions for summary judgment and directed verdict affirmed
VIEW OPINION (login required)
Torts -- Premises liability -- Slip and fall -- Transient substance on floor -- Condominiums -- Trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of condominium association and management company in premises liability action arising out of incident in which plaintiff walked into bathroom in her condominium unit and slipped and fell due to water and sewage on floor -- Plaintiff failed to put forth sufficient evidence to support reasonable inference that it was more likely than not that wastewater backup in her individual unit was caused by problem in wastewater pipes in common areas, which association was responsible for maintaining -- Plaintiff could not simply rely on Florida's established transient-substance caselaw where evidence indicated that wastewater backup could have resulted from a problem in either the wastewater pipes that were part of plaintiff's unit, and therefore her responsibility to maintain, or condominium's sanitary stack pipes
VIEW OPINION (login required)
Uniform Commercial Code -- Sales -- Motor vehicle -- Passing of title -- Constructive delivery -- Trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of purported purchaser based on conclusion that he was a bona fide purchaser under section 672.401(2), which provides that title passes to buyer at time and place of physical delivery, where trial court's conclusion was based on theory of constructive delivery, rather than actual physical delivery -- Trial court's finding that vehicle's presence at dealership at time of execution of purchase agreement constituted sufficient delivery for passage of title was insufficient to support summary judgment in favor of purported buyer where there were genuine disputes of material fact as to whether vehicle was physically delivered to purported buyer
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 -- Armed carjacking -- Possession of firearm by convicted felon -- Evidence -- General criminal behavior -- Relevant evidence -- Trial court did not fundamentally err by overruling defendant's objection regarding trooper's “general criminal behavior” testimony where defendant opened the door to the testimony and totality of state's evidence to establish guilt was substantial -- Defendant opened the door to general-criminal-behavior testimony in the opening statement when he claimed that a guilty man would not steal a car then drive with an unaltered license plate in broad daylight -- Inadmissible testimony may be admitted once the defendant opens the door to that subject -- Testimony on “general criminal behavior” was not the “substantive proof of guilt” as the total evidence presented by state was substantial -- Appellate court affirmed without elaboration trial court's denial of defense counsel's cross-examination of victim concerning victim's probationary status, and court's denial of defense counsel's requested instruction on “good faith defense”
VIEW OPINION (login required)
Criminal law -- Search and seizure -- Warrant -- Execution -- Knock-and-announce -- Court is not required to suppress evidence obtained under a valid search warrant to remedy a violation of the knock-and-announce requirement of § 933.09 -- Court recedes from State v. Cable in which it held that exclusion was applicable remedy for knock-and-announce violations -- Order suppressing evidence quashed -- Remand for further proceedings
VIEW OPINION (login required)