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.

Arbitration -- Non-binding arbitration -- Trial de novo -- Sufficiency of request -- Trial court erred by sua sponte striking appellant's motion and request for trial de novo based on determination that it did not comply with amendments to rule 1.820(h) because appellant's request did not expressly state that it was providing “notice of rejection” of the arbitration decision -- Discussion of section 44.103 and rule 1.820 -- Rule does not require request to contain the words “notice of rejection” -- Filing a document under rule 1.820(h) and section 44.103 that provides notice that the movant is requesting a trial de novo challenging a particular arbitration award satisfies the rule's notice requirement -- Language in appellant's filing, which stated that appellant wanted a trial de novo from non-binding arbitration award as to all claims, provided sufficient notice that appellant refused to accept the non-binding arbitration decision -- Conflict certified
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Civil procedure -- Contracts -- Service agreement -- Failure to pay amounts due -- Default judgment -- Damages -- Evidentiary hearing -- Notice -- Trial court erred by awarding unliquidated damages in final default judgment without a properly noticed damages trial where amount of damages could not be determined from the pleadings with exactness or arithmetic calculation -- Notice setting a trial period less than 30 days after date of service did not comply with rule 1.440(c)(4) where record did not indicate that parties agreed to less than 30 days' notice -- Remand for properly noticed trial to determine unliquidated damages -- Evidence -- Service agreement and invoice sheet were insufficient to permit amount owed to be determined with exactness and arithmetic calculation -- Service agreement itself simply stated that any amounts owed would be agreed upon in a written confirmation of each assignment transaction, and plaintiff did not submit written confirmations -- Invoices simply reflected the fixed sum demanded by plaintiff
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Guardianships -- Incapacitated persons -- Property -- Appointment of guardian -- Preneed directives -- Appeals -- Mootness -- Appeal of final judgments regarding ward's incapacity and the appointment of a plenary guardian in contravention of ward's preneed documentation -- Ward's death did not moot appeal where property guardian had executed a sale of ward's home and ward's estate is still litigating ongoing fee collections -- Trial court erred by appointing a professional plenary guardian without first making factual findings that ward's preneed directives designating appellant as her agent were contrary to the ward's best interest -- Where a ward expresses preference as to her preneed guardian, that intent serves as the polestar to guide probate judges in the appointment of their guardians -- By relying on court-appointed counsel's assessment of appellant as unsuitable to override ward's preneed designation, trial court effectively permitted counsel to substitute its judgment for ward's express preference -- Appellant's unorthodox financial strategies, such as purchasing precious metals and living rent-free in ward's home in accordance with preneed trust, did not justify override of ward's preneed directives -- Unconventional strategies and existing property interests do not constitute a per se conflict of interest warranting automatic disqualification -- Due process -- Trial court failed to provide due process by imposing a strict evidentiary cutoff that excluded post-appointment evidence relevant to property guardianship -- Post-appointment evidence of a professional guardian's actions is relevant and admissible to challenge the appointment of a property guardian -- Trial court could not retroactively cure evidentiary restriction by adding new factual findings in a subsequent rehearing order
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Insurance -- Homeowners -- Attorney's fees -- Proposal for settlement -- Validity -- Good faith -- Trial court abused its discretion in denying insurer's motion for attorney's fees based on determination the insurer's nominal proposal was not made in good faith -- Standard as to whether an offer is made in good faith is whether insurer has a reasonable basis for a nominal offer at the time the offer is made -- Insured's failure to comply with post-loss obligations under the policy was a reasonable basis for insurer to offer a nominal settlement amount -- Fact that insurer did not request any discovery prior to filing proposal for settlement was irrelevant
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Insurance -- Travel insurance -- Coverage -- Sickness -- Foreseeability -- Exclusions -- Preexisting conditions -- Insured, who had suffered from back pain for years, unable to go on cruise after he underwent surgery for a back condition -- Trial court did not err in determining that insured was entitled to reimbursement for the cost of cancelled cruise -- Insured's sickness commenced when policy coverage was in effect where evidence showed that insured had no plans to undergo surgery before purchasing cruise, insured was not informed he would need surgery until he had his initial appointment with a neurosurgeon after policy had been purchased, and insured had to have surgery prior to cruise because of the risks he faced by delaying surgery -- Although insured had received prior treatments for back conditions, those conditions were distinct from the sickness that necessitated cancellation of the cruise -- Trial court's finding that insured's sickness was unforeseeable is supported by competent, substantial evidence where, at time policy was purchased, insured was still maintaining an active lifestyle and had already gone on a separate cruise after purchasing subject policy -- While insured knew he was experiencing some back pain while walking long distances, he did not know that he would need surgery until after coverage had commenced -- Policy's pre-existing condition exclusion did not bar recovery where insured had not been treated for same condition in the 180-day period prior to effective date of policy
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Mortgage foreclosure -- Sale -- Surplus funds -- Distribution -- Estates -- Property -- Disclaimer of interest -- Trial court erred in dividing foreclosure surplus among five surviving siblings of mortgagor, who died intestate without living parents, spouse, or descendants, where three of the siblings had filed written disclaimers of their interests in the property in probate case -- Disclaimers complied with all requirements of section 739.104(3) and contained no reservation of rights or limiting language -- Once prepared and delivered in accordance with pertinent statutes, disclaimers became irrevocable by operation of law -- Fact that disclaimers were filed in probate case does not change result -- Noncompliance with section 45.033, which governs distribution of surplus foreclosure proceeds, did not render disclaimers ineffective -- Laws that ordinarily govern inheritance, including laws governing disclaimers, apply to involuntary transfers by inheritance
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Municipal corporations -- Elections -- Candidates -- Eligibility -- Qualifying fees -- Source of payment -- No error in concluding that village commissioner candidate was disqualified from running because his qualifying fees were paid by bank-issued cashier's check instead of a check drawn on the candidate's campaign account as required by section 99.061(7)(a)1. -- Court rejects argument that statute does not apply to municipal elections -- Statute applies in the absence of an applicable special act, charter, or ordinance provision -- Because village has enacted no provision that specifically delineates account from which qualifying fee must be paid, statute applied to village's municipal elections
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Torts -- Automobile accident -- Leased vehicles -- Temporary loaner vehicle -- Vicarious liability -- Dangerous instrumentalities -- Trial court properly found that both federal Graves Act and section 324.021(9)(c)3., as amended in 2020, immunized dealership from vicarious liability for driver's alleged negligence when driving a temporary loaner car provided by dealership while his leased car was being serviced, even though the loaner car was provided at no direct charge -- 2020 amendment to statute to extend statutory protection for dealerships to gratuitous bailments applied in instant case -- Federal preemption -- To extent that amended statute does not impose liability in situations where Graves Amendment would bar liability, it is not preempted
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Torts -- Legal malpractice -- Dismissal -- Standing -- Assignment of claims -- Action brought by judgment creditors of law firms' former clients following bankruptcy trustee's assignment of clients' potential legal malpractice claims -- No error in dismissing action with prejudice -- Legal malpractice claims are generally non-assignable, especially when, as in instant case, the assignees were litigation adversaries of the assignor -- Bankruptcy court's approval of trustee's assignments did not give plaintiffs standing or preempt long-standing common law prohibition on assignment of such claims
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Torts -- Retail store -- Premises liability -- Business invitee injured when she was struck by pallet jack operated by store employee -- New trial -- Trial court erred in ordering new trial based on conclusion that cumulative effect of several events occurring during trial deprived defendant of fair and impartial trial -- Juror misconduct or irregularity -- New trial not warranted by isolated incident in which trial court replaced juror with an alternate after juror became visibly ill during treating physician's medical demonstrative depicting plaintiff's brain injury where record contained no evidence that juror's reaction influenced any remaining juror or affected the verdict -- Premature deliberations -- Mid-trial note from jury asking whether earlier medical treatment would have altered plaintiff's medical outcome did not demonstrate premature deliberation warranting new trial where it was established that jurors did not discuss potential verdict, express opinions regarding liability or damages, or attempt to persuade one another on outcome -- Juror confusion -- Juror confusion concerning trial court's instructions and statements allegedly made by bailiff not basis for new trial where juror interview revealed no exposure to extrinsic information or improper outside influence and jurors' confusion as to when they were permitted to discuss evidence was promptly addressed by trial court through clarifying instructions -- The manner in which trial court conducted juror interview not basis for new trial where interview was undertaken at defendant's request in presence of counsel -- Cumulative effect -- Viewed collectively, incidents identified by trial court as basis for new trial do not establish that verdict was affected or that miscarriage of justice occurred -- Order granting new trial reversed -- Civil procedure -- Trial court could properly resolve motion for new trial based on existing record and parties' written submissions and was not required to conduct an evidentiary hearing before ruling on motion
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 -- Juveniles -- Resisting officer without violence -- Double jeopardy -- Juvenile arrested at school by two resource officers after juvenile became hostile when school administrator confiscated contraband -- Adjudicating juvenile delinquent of two counts of resisting arrest without violence violated double jeopardy -- Both counts arose out of one continuous act where, although both officers did act independently of each other during the incident, facts reflect a joint effort by officers to arrest and control juvenile, primary location of the incident remained at the school, no intervening act or temporal break occurred during the incident, and juvenile's intent remained consistent throughout the incident
VIEW OPINION (login required)