Fourth District: Clerk Has Judicial Immunity In Suit To Recover Payment for Fines in Unauthorized School Zone

In Zoba v. Coral Springs (4D14-1182), the "boundaries of judicial immunity are challenged." The Fourth District's majority opinion, written by Judge May and joined by Judge Gillen, explained that the plaintiff/appellant argued "that the clerk of court (“clerk”) is not entitled to judicial immunity for collecting, apportioning, distributing, and retaining monies, in conjunction with alleged illegal traffic fines." 

The facts are simple: "The plaintiff received a $600 traffic ticket for speeding in the school zone. He paid his fine in full because failure to comply would result in the suspension of his driver’s license." Later, "Plaintiff’s counsel received a ticket for the same violation on a different date. He fought the ticket arguing that the school zone was illegal because it was established in violation of county ordinance 23-6(d). He was acquitted." The plaintiff sought a return of the money collected by the clerk for fines issued and paid in what was later determined to be an illegal school zone. 

The question in the case was whether the clerk of court was entitled to judicial immunity for collecting the fines before the school zone was found to be illegal. 

The Fourth District explained judicial immunity as follows:

"[J]udicial immunity ‘insures that judges are immune from liability for damages for acts committed within their judicial jurisdiction [and] is essential to the preservation of an independent judiciary.’” Fong v.Forman, 105 So. 3d 650, 652 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (second alteration in original) (quoting Berry v. State, 400 So. 2d 80, 82–83 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)). “This doctrine has been extended to quasi-judicial officials, such as a clerk of court, performing judicial acts.” Id. (citations omitted). “The reason for extending immunity to quasi-judicial officers is because a strict guarantee of immunity is necessary to preserve the[ir] effectiveness and impartiality.” Fuller v. Truncale, 50 So. 3d 25, 27–28 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (alteration in original) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Further, the court explained that "[t]wo prerequisites must be met for judicial immunity to apply: '(1) the ruling in question [must be] a ‘judicial act;’ and (2) there [must be] jurisdiction to issue the ruling.' Fuller, 50 So. 3d at 28 (citations omitted). 'When these two prongs can be shown, the judge or quasi-judicial official may claim judicial immunity, even if the ruling in question was unwise, reckless, or malicious.” Id. (citation omitted)."

After analyzing the statutory authorization for the fines and the collection by the clerk, the court stated that:

These statutes and rules read together support the clerk’s argument that his collection, apportionment, and disbursement of traffic fines is part and parcel of the overall judicial process. Prior to the fine collection, the person who has received the noncriminal traffic infraction may appear before a court, or may waive that right and simply pay the ticket or enter into a payment plan. Either way, the person participates in the adjudicatory process or waives it. The clerk’s act of collection, apportionment, and disbursement is part of that judicial process—it is a judicial act entitling the clerk to immunity. And no one disputes the jurisdiction of the court and the clerk to perform their respective statutory duties.

***

Because the clerk’s collection, apportionment, and distribution of the fines are both statutorily and judicially ordered, they fall within the protection afforded by judicial immunity. 

Having resolved the issue of judicial immunity, the court addressed "the elephant in the room," which was whether the clerk could be required to refund the money. The court stated that "Here, if the school zone is found to be illegal, then a traffic fine for an infraction committed in the school zone is unconstitutional, but the administrative costs the clerk earned by statutorily collecting the fine are not. The clerk earned the costs for performing his statutorily and judicially directed job. Judicial immunity bars the clerk from having to defend against the plaintiff’s claim and incur attorney’s fees. We therefore affirm the dismissal of the clerk."

The majority opinion concluded by stating:

In the complaint, the plaintiff alleged an unjust enrichment claim against the clerk seeking to recoup all monies paid and retained. Today, we hold the clerk immune from the underlying suit and defense of the suit, and affirm the trial court’s decision on immunity. What has yet to be litigated is whether the plaintiff can recoup monies paid to the clerk should he succeed in obtaining a favorable final judgment. There are several hurdles the plaintiff must first overcome: (1) proving the school zone was illegally created; (2) defending the voluntary payment waiver defense; and (3) whether the clerk must refund monies beyond the administrative fees authorized by statute. Wisely, the trial court foresaw the issue, but the case was not yet in the procedural posture for the trial court to rule on it. See, e.g., State v. Barber, 301 So. 2d 7, 9– 10 (Fla. 1974). We save that issue for another day.

Judge Warner wrote a dissenting opinion that began: "Although I agree that the clerk of court can assert judicial immunity for the acts of collecting and distributing the traffic fines, including the administrative fee, I cannot agree that there is any judicial immunity for the retention of the portion of the fine which the clerk is allowed to keep in a fine and forfeiture fund pursuant to statute. That is directed by statute, not judicial discretion. See §§ 28.246(3); 318.21, Fla. Stat. (2010). In fact, pursuant to section 28.246(3), as quoted by the majority, such funds are disbursed “in accordance with authorizations and procedures as established by general law,” not judicial authority. § 28.246(3), Fla. Stat. (emphasis added). The ultimate action is not judicial, but statutory. The clerk was not acting as an arm of the court in retaining the funds; he was retaining a portion of the funds at the legislative directive to help fund the clerk’s office, the funding of which is a legislatively controlled action."

Fourth District: New Notice to Attorneys/Parties & New Administrative Order re: Agreed Extensions of Time

Last week the Fourth District issued a new Administrative Order regarding agreed extensions of time and an updated Notice to Attorneys and Parties. 

The Administrative Order regarding agreed extensions of time, Administrative Order 2016-01, can be downloaded HERE. The Fourth District's updated Notice to Attorneys and Parties can be downloaded HERE. 

The First District does not have an agreed extension procedure but the Second District, Third District, Fourth District (see above), and Fifth District do. The Second District's administrative order can be downloaded HERE (June 3, 2013); the Third District's administrative order can be downloaded HERE (amended June 30, 2015); and the Fifth District's administrative order can be downloaded HERE (March 8, 2013). 

Court Where Lis Pendens Filed Obtains Exclusive Jurisdiction Over All Liens Until Judgment

In Jallali v. Knightsbridge Village Homeowners Association, Inc. (4D15-2036), the Fourth District again held that the court where a mortgagee files a lis pendens obtains exclusive jurisdiction over all liens on the property until final judgment. Therefore, the judgment entered in a case filed after the original lis pendens must be vacated.

The court stated:

In the present case, when the mortgagee filed its foreclosure action and recorded its notice of lis pendens in May 2007, the association had not yet recorded a notice of lis pendens with regard to its 2011 lien and 2012 foreclosure action....... 

Accordingly, based on section 48.23, Florida Statutes (2015), Quadomain, and the cases cited therein, we conclude that the final foreclosure judgment which the association obtained in the 2012 case was void because the trial court lacked jurisdiction at that time. Exclusive jurisdiction to foreclose on Jallali’s property was in the circuit court conducting the mortgagee’s foreclosure action in the 2007 case. Accordingly, we reverse the order denying Jallali’s motion to vacate final judgment of foreclosure.

Failure To Make Payment In Florida Does Not (Without More) Allow Court to Exercise Personal Jurisdiction

In Cornerstone Investment Funding v. Painted Post Group (4D15-1907), the Fourth District reviewed a trial court's order denying a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The procedural history is somewhat unique but the holding is not. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the trial judge "concluded that Post Group had established both jurisdictional facts and minimum contacts between Cornerstone and Florida sufficient to assert personal jurisdiction over Cornerstone."

The Fourth District noted that to satisfy the requirements of personal jurisdiction, you must satisfy a two-pronged test. Specifically, personal jurisdiction may be exercised only when:

(1) the complaint alleges facts that would subject the defendant to Florida’s “long- arm” statute, and (2) the defendant has sufficient “minimum contacts” to meet traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice such that the defendant could ‘“reasonably anticipate being haled into court’” due to its actions. Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So. 2d 499, 501 (Fla. 1989) (quoting World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297 (1980)); Henderson v. Elias, 56 So. 3d 86 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). 

In this case, the plaintiff satisfied the first prong because "failure to pay on a contract requiring payment in Florida has been found sufficient to satisfy Florida’s long-arm statute conferring jurisdiction over breach of contract actions. Smith Architectural Grp., Inc. v. Dehaan, 867 So. 2d 434, 436 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)."

However, the plaintiff failed to satisfy the second prong. The court stated:

The mere fact, however, that Cornerstone allegedly breached a contract by failing to make payments on the contract in Florida would not constitute sufficient minimum contacts with this state to satisfy due process. Taskey v. Burtis, 785 So. 2d 557, 559 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (“Factors that go into determining whether sufficient minimum contacts exist include the foreseeability that the defendant’s conduct will result in suit in the forum state and the defendant’s purposeful availment of the forum’s privileges and protections.”); Labry v. Whitney Nat’l Bank, 8 So. 3d 1239, 1241 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); Ganiko v. Ganiko, 826 So. 2d 391, 394- 95 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). As neither Post Group’s amended complaint nor Goldin’s hearing testimony showed that any act beyond repayment of the promissory note was required to be performed in Florida, Cornerstone does not have sufficient minimum contacts with this state to support the assertion of personal jurisdiction over it. 

Petition For Certiorari Denied Due to District Conflict

In The First Liberty Insurance Corp. v. O’Neill (4D14–2895), the Fourth District denied a petition for certiorari because the Fourth District had not decided the issue at the time of the trial court’s decision.

In this case, when the trial court entered the order the First District and the Fifth District had released conflicting decisions on the same issue. However, “at the time of the circuit court’s decisions, we had not addressed the issue of whether an insured, after obtaining a favorable result on its benefits claim, may amend the complaint to add a first-party bad faith claim instead of filing a new action on the bad faith claim.”

Therefore, because there was no clearly established law, the petition was denied. The court stated:

Given the lack of binding authority from this court on the underlying issue, and given the split of authority between our sister courts on the underlying issue, we cannot say that the circuit court’s apparent decision to follow the First District’s authority was a departure from the essential requirements of the law at the time of its decision. Thus, because of that procedural posture, we are compelled to deny the petition for writ of certiorari and not decide the underlying issue until a final appealable judgment is entered.

Motion for Attorneys Fees in Original Proceeding Must Be Filed Before Disposition

In Geico General Insurance Company v. Moultrop (4D15-2772, Nov. 12, 2015), the Fourth District wrote an opinion on a motion for attorneys fees filed after a petition for writ of certiorari was denied. The court stated:

Rule 9.400(b)(2) provides that “in original proceedings” a motion for attorney’s fees “shall be served not later than . . . the time for service of the petitioner’s reply to the response to the petition.” Here, the court denied the petition without requiring a response to the petition or, obviously, a reply to a response. Having been first filed after the petition had been denied, the motion for appellate attorney’s fees is denied as untimely. 

Sanction Over Not Removing Prior Counsel From E-Service List Reversed

In Houston v. McKnought-Smith (4D14-4927), the Fourth District reversed a trial court's order sanctioning counsel and requiring the "former wife’s attorney to pay attorney’s fees to the former husband’s previous attorney."

The court "the previous attorney claimed that he had to file a motion requesting that the wife’s attorney be ordered not to serve him, and requesting attorney’s fees. In granting the motion and ordering the payment of fees at a non-evidentiary hearing, the court failed to make the necessary finding that the wife’s attorney acted in bad faith in serving the husband’s previous attorney." Therefore, the order was reversed in order to allow for an evidentiary hearing. 

There were also two footnotes in the opinion. The second footnote stated that "it is difficult to believe that any Moakley bad faith can be shown by the wife’s attorney’s service of two pleadings on the previous attorney (who had not withdrawn on the record). However, because there was no evidentiary hearing, all of the facts are not present. Nevertheless, it appears that professionalism has eluded these attorneys, burdening both the trial court and this court."

The first footnote indicates there was a question without an answer regarding e-filing. The court stated that "it is unclear whether the wife’s attorney could have prevented service through the electronic filing portal on an attorney that the portal had listed for service."  

I do not think the answer would impact the "it is difficult to believe" portion of the second footnote quoted above, because I think the court was indicating that it is difficult to believe that the conduct is sanctionable regardless of the ability to deselect a recipient. However, as shown below, page 6 of the Florida Court's E-Filing Portal Handbook shows that it is possible to deselect a recipient: 

The entire handbook can be viewed HERE. It is also possible to remove yourself from a service list:

See page 21 of the handbook.

Question As To Whether Legislature Can Limit Attorneys Fees in Claims Bill Sent To Florida Supreme Court

In July, the Fourth District issued an opinion discussed HERE in a post titled "Fourth District: Legislature Entitled To Limit Payment of Attorney's Fees In Claims Bill." Today, in THIS opinion, the court granted the Appellant's motion for certification as a question of great public importance and certified the following question to the Florida Supreme Court:

AFTER THE ENACTMENT OF SECTION 768.28, FLORIDA STATUTES, AND THE ADOPTION OF FLORIDA SENATE RULE 4.81(6), IS IT CONSTITUTIONALLY PERMISSIBLE FOR THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE TO LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES PAID FROM A GUARDIANSHIP TRUST ESTABLISHED BY A LEGISLATIVE CLAIMS BILL?

 All three members of the panel concurred in the certification order.

Fourth District: Medical Examination of Defendant Not Seeking Relief Must Occur Where Defendant Lives

In Bodzin v. Leviter (4D15-2122), the Fourth District held that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law when it entered an order requiring the non-resident defendant "to appear for an independent medical examination in Florida. See Youngblood v. Michaud, 593 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (independent medical examination of defendant should occur only in county of defendant’s residence)."

The majority opinion relied upon the Youngblood case cited above, and held that the "Respondent’s reliance on McKenney v. Airport Rent-A-Car, Inc., 686 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), is misplaced." In McKenney, "the trial court required a plaintiff to appear for an independent medical examination in the county where the plaintiff filed suit, and our court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion."

In this case, it was the plaintiff seeking an IME of the defendant, a defendant that was not seeking affirmative relief. Therefore, the court stated that "here, the gravamen of the cause of action in this case─investment fraud─has nothing to do with defendant’s condition. Thus, Youngblood, and not McKenney, is on point."

The court's majority opinion concluded as follows:

There is no rule or statute which requires the defendant to testify at the trial. See Graber v. Gassman, 321 So. 2d 82, 83 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Obviously, petitioner does not intend to testify at trial, and there is nothing in this record to show that respondent has subpoenaed him and intends to call him as a witness. Although petitioner does not object to the examination, he objects to an examination outside of his state of residence. If respondent still wishes to obtain an examination, she must schedule one there. 

The majority opinion was written by Judge Warner, and Judge Levine concurred. Judge Conner wrote a dissenting opinion. Judge Conner's dissent stated, in part, as follows:

I respectfully disagree with the majority. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.360 does not limit its application to a party seeking affirmative relief. Instead, the rule allows for the examination of a party “when the condition that is the subject of the requested examination is in controversy.” Fla. R. Civ. Proc. 1.360(a)(1) (emphasis added). I disagree that the rule works differently depending on whether it is a plaintiff or defendant being examined. I have found no case law in Florida that holds the rule works differently, depending on which party is being examined.

Fourth District: Legislature Entitled To Limit Payment of Attorney's Fees In Claims Bill

In Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart& Shipley, P.A. v. State (4D13-3497), a divided panel of the Fourth District held that the "guardianship court’s decision to recognize the Legislature’s prerogative of limiting the payment of fees and costs [in this case] to $100,000." The opinion was written by Judge Forst.  Judge Conner joined the majority opinion and also wrote a concurring opinion. Chief Judge Ciklin wrote a 19-page dissenting opinion. The majority opinion described the facts as follows:

The law firm "represented the family in a five-week jury trial in 2007. The jury found that Lee Memorial Health System’s employees had been negligent and that their negligence had resulted in damages to Aaron and his parents. The jury awarded Aaron over $28.3 million. His mother was awarded $1,340,000 in damages, and his father was awarded $1,000,000. However, the trial court found that Lee Memorial was an independent special district of the State of Florida and, pursuant to the sovereign immunity damage limitations in section 768.28(5), Florida Statutes (2007), entered a judgment against the hospital in the amount of $200,000. The trial court rulings were affirmed by the Second District Court of Appeal. Lee Mem’l Health Sys. v. Edwards, 22 So. 3d 81 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009).

In an attempt to recover additional funds beyond the $200,000 limit, the law firm submitted a claims bill to the Florida legislature. 

In 2012, after a public campaign in support of the bill, the Legislature passed Claims Bill 2012-249, directing Lee Memorial to appropriate $10 million, with an additional $5 million payable in annual installments, “to the Guardianship of Aaron Edwards, to be placed in a special needs trust for the exclusive use and benefit of Aaron Edwards, a minor.” Ch. 2012-249, § 2, Laws of Fla. No monies were appropriated for the use and/or benefit of either parent for their damages. The claims bill also included a stipulation stating “[t]he total amount paid for attorney’s fees, lobbying fees, costs, and other similar expenses relating to this claim may not exceed $100,000.” Id. § 3. It is this provision that is the focus of the matter before us.

After the $10 million had been paid into a trust for Aaron Edwards's needs, the lawyers ("with support from the Edwards family"), asked the court to allocate $2.5 million for attorney's fees. "The petition premised this request on a 25% fee cap provision in section 768.28(8) and on the argument that the fees and costs limitation in the claims bill was unconstitutional." 

On the merits of the issue presented, the court began with an analysis of sovereign immunity. 

The doctrine of sovereign immunity stretches back to the foundations of Anglo-American common law. Espousing the maxim that “the King can do no wrong,” Blackstone explained that “no suit or action can be brought against the King, even in civil matters, because no court can have jurisdiction over him.” 1 WILLIAM BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES *235. However, should a subject of the Crown have “a just demand upon the King, he must petition him in his court of chancery, where his chancellor will administer right as a matter of grace, though not upon compulsion.” Id. at *236.  

When the common law was exported to the American continent, sovereign immunity came with it.  

***

Section 768.28, Florida Statutes, is the codification of the state’s limited waiver of sovereign immunity in tort actions. A plaintiff’s recovery against the state and its agencies or subdivisions is limited to no more than $200,000 per incident. § 768.28(5), Fla. Stat. (2007). Moreover, in cases where a judgment exceeds $200,000, “that portion of the judgment that exceeds these amounts may be reported to the Legislature, but may be paid in part or in whole only by further act of the Legislature.” Id.  

After an analysis of the legal opinions regarding the statute and its application when the legislature limited compensation to lawyers, the court turned to the case before it. The court stated that "in the instant case, as in Gamble and Noel, the Legislature passed a claims bill that provided a specific amount of attorneys’ fees that was significantly less than the amount contracted for between the Edwards family and their law firm, Searcy Denney." Addressing the ultimate conclusion, and the dissenting opinion, the court stated:

Notwithstanding Appellants’ (and the dissenting opinion’s) arguments to the contrary, Gamble and Noel, and the reasoning therein, support the guardianship court’s decision to recognize the Legislature’s prerogative of limiting the payment of fees and costs to $100,000. A claims bill, both before and after the enactment of section 768.28, is a “voluntary recognition of its moral obligation by the legislature” and, as such, is firmly entrenched in the sphere of legislative discretion. Noel, 984 So. 2d at 1267 (quoting Gamble, 450 So. 2d at 853). “Parties cannot enter into a contract to bind the state in the exercise of its sovereign power. . . . The legislature was in no way bound to pass legislation conforming with the provisions of the prior contingent fee contract.” Gamble, 450 So. 2d at 853. “That the claim[s] bill is separate and apart from the constraints of an earlier lawsuit is demonstrated by the supreme court’s recognition that [the] legislature has the power to limit attorney’s fees in a claims bill, no matter what the underlying fee contract provides[.]” Noel, 984 So. 2d at 1267. “A claim[s] bill is not obtainable by right upon the claimant’s proof of entitlement, but rather is granted strictly as a matter of legislative grace.” Wagner v. Orange Cnty., 960 So. 2d 785, 788 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); see also United Servs.Auto Ass’n v. Phillips, 740 So.2d 1205, 1209 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).

In conclusion, the court stated: "Appellants’ (and the dissenting opinion’s) dissatisfaction with the limitation on attorneys’ fees and costs imposed in Aaron’s claims bill is understandable, and the possibility of such a restriction in a claims bill posits an additional factor to be considered by counsel in deciding whether to take on representation in a case in this state involving a sovereign entity defendant. Appellants’ reply brief states, 'If there is no reasonable financial incentive for lawyers to take these type cases, the injured will go unrepresented.' To what extent this is true is beyond our focus. Therefore, we affirm the guardianship court’s ruling."

As noted above, there were three opinions in this appeal. Judge Forst wrote the opinion, and was joined by Judge Conner who also wrote a concurring opinion. Chief Judge Ciklin wrote a dissenting opinion.

Judge Conner's concurrence states:

Anytime legal analysis traces back to Blackstone and the foundations of Anglo-American law, one knows core legal values are being addressed. I write to further explain why I cannot agree with the reasoning of the dissent, although the dissent makes very cogent arguments as to why Gamble and Noel should not control the outcome of this case. 

The premise of the dissent is that by enacting section 768.28, Florida Statutes, the legislature altered the “legislative grace” attribute of its monetary awards by making a judicial or administrative award a precondition for initiating the claims bill process. The argument is that you can’t even try to pass through the doors of the legislature until you successfully pass through the doors of the courthouse. Thus, the two processes are welded; this means the “act of grace” analysis has been “transcended” because the weld now raises the specter of “a chilling effect upon the sacrosanct and fundamental constitutional right to access to our courts.” 

The fly in the ointment regarding the dissent’s argument is the failure to recognize that seeking redress from the legislature is fundamentally different from seeking redress from the court. Every citizen has a fundamental right to seek redress from the court because that is a core function of the judicial branch of government. There is no fundamental right to seek redress from the legislature because such is not a core function of that branch.

***

Therefore, I agree with the majority opinion that unless our supreme court changes course in its legal analysis regarding separation of powers, arguments regarding impairment of contract, unconstitutional taking, denial of due process and equal protection and all variations on those themes are unpersuasive. 

Finally, the 19-page dissenting opinion by Chief Judge Ciklin begins, in part, as follows:

I respectfully dissent and offer my overall assessment of the crucially important issues involved in this case, the ultimate resolution of which will have deep and profound ramifications for many Floridians—and for many years to come.

*** 

Because the claim bill’s limitation on attorneys’ fees and costs is an unconstitutional impairment on the Edwards family and firm’s right to contract, I would reverse. I have taken the liberty to also write to remind the readers of this dissent and all Florida lawyers, that contingency fee agreements are directly connected to every citizen’s right to access to our courts. I cite to the Florida Code of Professional Responsibility which contemplates the ethical and moral obligation of “us lawyers” licensed to practice in this state, to always consider the contingency fee agreement as the “poor man’s key to the courthouse.” Because of the enactment of section 768.28, which now requires that aggrieved individuals first invoke the civil process of law before even approaching the Legislature for sovereign immunity relief, the “key” should be easily accessible. The right to this key is rich and deeply rooted in American history and it is a judicial time-honored duty and responsibility to protect the inalienable rights of our people in this regard. 

Fourth District: Legislative Cap On Non-Ecomomic Damages In Personal Injury Cases Violates the Florida Constitution

In North Broward Hospital District et al v. Kalitan (4D11-4806), a panel of the Fourth District Court of Appeal concluded that a 2014 decision of the Florida Supreme Court required it to conclude that the legislative caps on non-economic damages in personal injury cases violates the equal protection clause of the Florida Constitution. The Fourth District's decision began as follows:

In Estate of McCall v. United States, 134 So. 3d 894 (Fla. 2014), the Florida Supreme Court determined that the caps on noneconomic damages awards in wrongful death cases, imposed by section 766.118, Florida Statutes (2005), violated the equal protection clause of the Florida Constitution. Art. I, § 2, Fla. Const. The instant case consolidates three appeals from a single medical malpractice incident with a final judgment finding Appellants, defendants below (“Defendants”), liable for the injuries and damages suffered by Appellee Susan Kalitan (“Plaintiff”). Plaintiff’s jury-awarded damages were limited by the trial court’s application of section 766.118, and Plaintiff’s cross-appeal challenges the constitutionality of those caps.

Accordingly, this appeal presents an issue of first impression in the post-McCall legal environment—whether the opinion (or, more accurately, opinions) of the Florida Supreme Court in McCall dictates our holding that the caps on noneconomic damage awards in personal injury medical malpractice cases are similarly unconstitutional. Although Defendants attempt to distinguish the caps in wrongful death cases from those in personal injury cases, and there are clear distinctions, McCall mandates a finding that the caps in section 766.118 personal injury cases are similarly unconstitutional. To conclude otherwise would be disingenuous. Consequently, we reverse the trial court’s decision below insofar as it reduced the jury’s award of noneconomic damages based on the caps in section 766.118. 

Note that it is the 2014 version of section 766.118 linked throughout the quote above. Section 766.118, Florida Statutes (2005), cited in the quote above, can be viewed HERE. The 2005 version was apparently amended twice. See  s. 204, ch. 2007-230; and s. 28, ch. 2011-135.

Next, the opinion explained the multiple decisions that make up the Florida Supreme Court's decision in McCall, and why the panel determined that the supreme court's plurality opinion in McCall must be followed in this case. The court seems to make it clear that whether or not you agree with the conclusion regarding the constitutionality of the caps is an issue to be taken up with the Florida Supreme Court - and therefore an issue this appellate court need not independently address. In conclusion, the court stated:

CONCLUSION

Per McCall, Plaintiff’s noneconomic damages were improperly limited by the application of the caps in section 766.118 and, accordingly, we reverse the noneconomic damages award in the final judgment. Defendants have asked this court to distinguish single claimant personal injury cases from the multiple claimant wrongful death situation addressed in McCall. However, we have found no basis to do so that would not conflict with the reasoning of the Florida Supreme Court’s plurality and concurring opinions, which strike at the underpinning of the Legislature’s caps on noneconomic damages in general. So long as the caps discriminate between classes of medical malpractice victims, as they do in the personal injury context (where the claimants with little noneconomic damage can be awarded all of their damages, in contrast to those claimants whose noneconomic damages are deemed to exceed the level to which the caps apply), they are rendered unconstitutional by McCall, notwithstanding the Legislature’s intentions.

The trial court is directed to reinstate the total damages award as found by the jury, though these damages may still be limited by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Also, in the corrected final judgment, the University is not to be held liable for the damages attributable to the Nurse. As no challenge was raised as to liability in any other context, nor was a challenge raised regarding Plaintiff’s economic damages award, those portions of the final judgment are affirmed.

The 14-page opinion was written by Judge Forst, and the opinion was joined by Chief Judge Ciklin and Judge Stevenson. Some of the briefs filed in this appeal are available at the links below:

• Appellee's Answer Brief/Cross-Appellant's Initial Brief (filed July 22, 2013);
• Appellant's Reply Brief/Cross-Appellee's Answer Brief (filed December 2, 2013);
• Appellant's Reply Brief/Cross-Appellee's Answer Brief (filed December 3, 2013);
• Appellant/Cross-Appellee's Supplemental Brief (filed May 12, 2014); and
• Appellee/Cross-Appellant's Supplemental Brief (filed May 23, 2014).

Error In Legal Description Renders Judgment Voidable, and Cannot Be Corrected More Than A Year After Issuance

Epstein v. Bank of America (4D13-4066), released today, involves a borrower’s challenge to a trial court’s order vacating a judgment that had been entered in favor of the plaintiff/lender. Three years after the judgment was entered in its favor, the plaintiff/lender sought to vacate the judgment due to an error in the legal description of the property on the mortgage, complaint, and ultimately the judgment. Ultimately, the court reversed the trial court's order vacating the judgment. As is shown below, the error relating to the property description was a voidable error, meaning the trial court lost jurisdiction to correct the error one year after the judgment was entered. 

The court outlined the facts at issue as follows:

The problem began when the mortgage was signed using an incorrect legal description for the real property. Subsequently, the bank filed a foreclosure complaint. In December 2009, a final summary judgment of foreclosure was entered using the incorrect legal description. The foreclosure sale was conducted the following August with the bank as the highest bidder. Shortly thereafter, a certificate of title containing the incorrect legal description was issued to the bank.

Two years later, in September 2012, the bank filed its first motion to vacate the final summary judgment, sale, and certificate of title. The motion was filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(1), alleging that, “due to an inadvertent mistake,” the legal description of the property in the mortgage was incorrect, and therefore, the bank needed to amend the complaint to add a reformation count. It also alleged that the incorrect legal description in the foreclosure judgment prevented the bank from obtaining clear title to the property. In October 2012, the trial court entered an order denying the bank’s motion, “without prejudice.”

In January 2013, the bank filed its second motion to vacate. This second motion was also filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(1), but, additionally, pursuant to rule 1.540(b)(4), on the added grounds that the final judgment was void. In this motion, the bank admitted that it was made aware of the error in the legal description in the mortgage and final judgment in October 2010, ten months after the judgment was entered. The motion alleged that the error in the legal description in the final judgment was clouding the title to property owned by a third party.

A hearing was held on the bank’s second motion. At the hearing, the homeowner objected to the bank’s second motion, arguing that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to hear the motion because rule 1.540(b)(1) has a one-year time limit for vacating a judgment, and the bank’s motion was filed more than a year after the judgment was entered. The bank renewed its argument that the incorrect legal description rendered the judgment void, making the one-year time limitation inapplicable. The trial court granted the bank’s second motion.

On appeal, the issue was whether the three-year old judgment was void or merely voidable. The court noted that “‘[i]f a judgment is ‘void’ then under rule 1.540(b) it can be attacked at any time, but if it is only ‘voidable’ then it must be attacked within a year of entry of the judgment.’ Condo. Ass’n of La Mer Estates, Inc. v. Bank of New York Mellon Corp., 137 So. 3d 396, 398 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). Thus, the determining factor in this case is whether the final judgment was void due to an error in the legal description in the mortgage and judgment.”

In this case, the “bank argues that the judgment was void ‘because the owner of the property identified in the judgment was not made a party to the underlying case.’” The court explained that:

The bank argues that the instant case is similar to Wright, and that the final summary judgment in this case is void because the due process rights of the owner of the described property in the mortgage and judgment were violated in that the actual owner was never made a party to the action. However, there are two problems with the argument. First, there is no evidence in the record that there is an owner of the described property other than the homeowner named in the complaint, or that the property, as described in the mortgage and judgment, even exists. Second, if the property described in the mortgage and final judgment does exist, and if there is an owner of the property other than the homeowner named in the complaint, that owner was not the party challenging the final summary judgment. “[C]onstitutional rights are personal and may not be asserted vicariously.” Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 610 (1973). This also holds true specifically for due process challenges. See State v. Muller, 693 So. 2d 976, 978 (Fla. 1997) (holding that a defendant lacked standing to challenge a violation of the due process rights of the non-defendant owners of a vehicle). Therefore, the due process argument that the judgment is void is not applicable in this case.

***

Although not cited by either party, we agree with the analysis of the Second District regarding the authority of the court to correct errors in the legal descriptions in mortgages and foreclosure judgments: 

When a mortgage contains an incorrect legal description, a court may correct the mistake before foreclosure. If, however, the mistaken legal description is not corrected before final judgment of foreclosure, and the mistake is carried into the advertisement for sale and the foreclosure deed, a court cannot reform the mistake in the deed and judgment; rather, the foreclosure process must begin anew. Lucas v. Barnett Bank of Lee Cnty., 705 So. 2d 115, 116 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (citing Fisher v. Villamil, 62 Fla. 472, 56 So. 559 (1911)).  

As the Second District noted, “[w]hile the mortgagee who bid its mortgage at the sale might have understood exactly what property was being offered, other potential bidders at the sale might not have had the same understanding.” Id.

In conclusion, the court stated: "As to the named parties in this proceeding, there is no issue of subject matter jurisdiction or personal jurisdiction. We therefore determine that the final summary judgment was voidable, not void, and the bank’s motion to vacate was time-barred under rule 1.540(b)."

Fourth District Sanctions Counsel For Failing To Confess Error on Appeal

In Lieberman v. Lieberman (4D14-509), the Fourth District again explained what should be obvious: you have an obligation to concede error if controlling caselaw requires a reversal. In this case that did not happen. The court first discussed the merits of the petition for writ of certiorari. Relying upon “Rule Regulating the Florida Bar 4-3.7(a) which states that ‘[a] lawyer shall not act as advocate at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness on behalf of the client . . . .’”, the trial court disqualified the former husbands new counsel, which also happened to be his new wife. 

After noting that “certiorari jurisdiction lies to review an order disqualifying counsel from representing a client at trial,” the court concluded "that the order of disqualification departs from the essential requirements of law because it is not limited to Ferrer’s participation during the contempt hearing. As is well established by numerous Florida courts, the fact that Ferrer was a potentially necessary witness at the contempt hearing would not prevent her from serving as the former husband’s attorney in other pre-trial, trial, and post-trial proceedings.”

In this case, that holding did not end the court’s opinion. The court continued as follows:

Under normal circumstances, we would conclude this opinion by simply granting the petition and quashing the trial court’s order of disqualification and therein recognize that the order of disqualification was impermissibly overbroad. However, the actions of counsel for the former wife, Kenneth Kaplan, have transformed this “simple” matter into an unnecessary and protracted controversy by the failure of Kaplan to acknowledge clear and unambiguous controlling law directly adverse to his client’s position. As such, we are compelled to take the extraordinary but not unprecedented step of awarding appellate attorney’s fees as a sanction. See Santini v. Cleveland Clinic Fla., 65 So. 3d 22, 40-41 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (awarding appellate attorney’s fees as a sanction for a frivolous defense of a “patently erroneous” trial court order), review denied, 90 So. 3d 272 (Fla. 2012); see also Crowley v. Crowley, 678 So. 2d 435, 440 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (recognizing that “attorney’s fees may be awarded as a punitive measure where a spouse in a domestic relations case institutes frivolous . . . claims that contribute to unnecessary legal expenses, costs and a delay of the proceedings”).  

Although the former husband did not cite KMS, Graves, or Cerillo, either here or in the trial court, Kaplan had an obligation to concede error based on those cases and the plain language of the rule.  

“[A]ppellate counsel . . . has an independent [] obligation to present . . . the applicable law accurately and forthrightly. This will sometimes require appellate counsel to concede error where . . . the law is clearly contrary to the appellee’s position and no good-faith basis exists to argue that it should be changed.” 

Boca Burger, Inc. v. Forum, 912 So. 2d 561, 571 (Fla. 2005). The trial court’s order of disqualification did not just prohibit Ferrer from representing the former husband at the contempt hearing; it generally prohibited her from any further representation of the former husband. The disqualification order is contrary to the plain terms of rule 4-3.7(a), titled “When Lawyer May Testify,” which prohibits the lawyer from acting “as advocate at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness on behalf of the client.” R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-3.7(a) (emphasis added). The rule does not support general disqualification of counsel. 

**** 

In this case, there was no legal basis for disqualifying Ferrer from representing the former husband in any proceedings subsequent to the contempt hearing. Therefore, the former wife’s counsel, Mr. Kaplan, should have confessed error as to the trial court’s general order of disqualification. Failure to do so was a self-evident violation of counsel’s duty to disclose legal authority adverse to his client’s legal position and argument. R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-3.3(a)(3); Dilallo ex rel. Dilallo v. Riding Safely, Inc., 687 So. 2d 353, 355 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (holding that rule 4-3.3(3) implies a duty to know and disclose adverse legal authority to the courts); see also R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-3.1 (“A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.”). 

Accordingly, we remand this matter to the trial court to assess the amount of appellate attorney’s fees to be imposed as sanction on the former wife for her counsel’s baseless defense in this proceeding. Santini, 65 So. 3d at 41.

Dismissal With Prejudice for Discovery Violations Reversed

In PNC Bank, N.A. v. Duque (4D12-1799), the Fourth District reversed a trial court's order dismissing a complaint with prejudice as a result of discovery violations. In this foreclosure action, the defendant served numerous discovery requests to which the plaintiff, allegedly, failed to respond. As a result, the defendant sought sanctions and the trial court dismissed the case with prejudice. The plaintiff filed a motion for rehearing directed to the dismissal, however, that motion was denied and the plaintiff appealed. On appeal, the court held:

We have reviewed the trial court’s order. While indicating that the court considered the six Kozel factors, the order lacked specific findings as to each. We do not condone the bank’s failure to comply with discovery and court orders; we feel the trial court’s frustration. But, as the bank argues, the homeowners made numerous confusing and cumulative discovery requests while failing to file a responsive pleading for two years. There was no evidence that the violations were caused by the bank itself. The homeowners suffered no prejudice, and the bank’s violations did not cause any significant problem with judicial administration.  

The law does not always provide a good roadmap for trial courts. In this area of sanctioning non-compliant parties, however, our supreme court has done just that. See Kozel, 629 So. 2d at 818. When the trial court fails to follow that roadmap, reversal is warranted. See Bank One, 873 So. 2d at 521–22. 

Fourth District Quashes Order Compelling Deposition Of Defendant Outside Of County of Residence

In Polselli v. Wicker, Smith, O’Hara & Ford, P.A. (4D13-4180), the Fourth District granted a petition for writ of certiorari and quashed the trial court’s order compelling the deposition of the petitioners. The majority opinion stated that "Respondent noticed the petitioners to appear for deposition in their individual capacity. It is well-settled that a defendant must be deposed in the county of his or her work or residence unless the defendant has sought affirmative relief or extraordinary circumstances exist.” The court stated that “Petitioners are not seeking affirmative relief and respondents have failed to demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances exist, which would require petitioners’ appearance in Florida for deposition.” Therefore, the order compelling the deposition to occur in Broward County was quashed.

Judge Warner filed a dissenting opinion, dissenting on two different grounds. Her dissent first stated that "The trial court originally entered an order in August 2013, requiring the petitioners to appear for their depositions in Broward County. Rather than seek review of that order, petitioners failed to appear for the scheduled depositions, prompting a motion to compel and the order now before this court. Their failure to seek timely review of the August 2013 order resulted in a waiver of their right to contest their required appearance in Florida.” Presumably in response to this portion of the dissent, and regarding the motion to dismiss, the majority opinion included a footnote stating: “We deny respondent’s motion to dismiss as the previous directive that the petitioners appear “as scheduled” was issued within an order that permitted their attorneys to withdraw.”

Judge Warner also dissented on the merits. The dissent states "Alternatively, I would deny the petition because petitioners have failed to demonstrate that they are not corporate representatives who can be deposed at the corporate place of business. CVS Caremark Corp. v. Latour, 109 So. 3d 1232 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). Based on the foregoing, I cannot conclude that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law.”

Fourth District On The Retroactive Application of Section 768.0755 (Conflict Certified), Jury Interviews, & Non-Delegable Duty of Care

 In Pembroke Lakes Mall LTD v. McGruder (4D11-4005), the Fourth District affirmed in part, reversed in part, and certified conflict with the Third District’s decision in Kenz v. Miami-Dade County, 116 So. 3d 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). The court “conclude[d] the trial court properly denied the Mall’s motion for directed verdict and the court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion for mistrial following McGruder’s improper arguments. We also affirm the trial court’s decision to not apply section 768.0755 retroactively, and we certify conflict with the Third District on that issue. We reverse on the issues of the juror interviews and the cross-appeal, and remand for the court to allow Pembroke Lakes and Millard to conduct interviews of the jurors.”

Retroactive Application of Statute

The court first addressed “whether section 768.0755, Florida Statutes (2010), applies retroactively.” In 2001, in a slip and fall case, the Florida Supreme Court held that “all premises owners owe a duty to their invitees to exercise reasonable care to maintain their premises in a safe condition.” Owens v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 802 So. 2d 315, 320 (Fla. 2001). The Fourth District stated that “in 2002, apparently in response to Owens, the Florida Legislature enacted section 768.0710, Florida Statutes (2002), establishing the ‘burden of proof in claims of negligence involving transitory foreign objects or substances against persons or entities in possession or control of business premises.’” However, in 2010, the legislature again amended the statute in a substantial way. "The legislature repealed section 768.0710 and replaced it with section 768.0755, Florida Statutes (2010) and therein provided an effective date of July 1, 2010. In revising the law and repealing section 768.0710, the legislature did not state the new statute should apply retroactively. Section 768.0755 is entitled ‘Premises liability for transitory foreign substances in a business establishment’.”

The issue was whether the 2002 version of the law, or the 2010 version enacted after the alleged incident, would apply to this claim. To determine whether a statute can be applied retroactively:

The Florida Supreme Court has set a two-prong test for determining whether a statute applies retroactively: “‘First, the Court must ascertain whether the Legislature intended for the statute to apply retroactively. Second, if such an intent is clearly expressed, the Court must determine whether retroactive application would violate any constitutional principles.’” Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass’n v. Devon Neighborhood Ass’n, 67 So. 3d 187, 195 (Fla. 2011) (quoting Menendez v. Progressive Express Ins. Co., 35 So. 3d 873, 877 (Fla. 2010)).

“As to the first prong, legislative intent, the legislature gave no indication in section 768.0755 that the statute was to be applied retroactively.” However, “the general rule against retroactive application of statutes does not apply to procedural or remedial changes.” "Thus, the issue is whether section 768.0755 is procedural or substantive. ‘ S]ubstantive law prescribes duties and rights and procedural law concerns the means and methods to apply and enforce those duties and rights.' Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Mancusi, 632 So. 2d 1352, 1358 (Fla. 1994) (citation omitted).”

As to this specific change, and contrary to the Third District’s conclusion in Kenz, the court stated that “the shift from 768.0710 to 768.0755 was far more than a simple procedural change to the burden of proof.” The court also “respectfully disagree[d] with the Kenz court’s conclusion that applying section 768.0755 retroactively would not abolish a plaintiff’s cause of action.” Therefore, the statute could not be applied retroactively.and held that “for these reasons, we affirm the trial court’s decision to apply the 2002 statute (section 768.0710) rather than the 2010 law (section 768.0755), and certify conflict with the Third District’s Kenz decision.”

Post-Trial Jury Interviews

The court also addressed the trial court’s denial of a motion to conduct post-trial jury interviews. "Where, as here, the basis of a request for post-trial interviews is the jurors’ alleged nondisclosure of information during voir dire, “the motion should demonstrate entitlement to a new trial under the three-part test” of De La Rosa v. Zequeira, 659 So. 2d 239, 241 (Fla. 1995).” The court stated that:

Applying these principles to the instant case, we must conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion to interview the jurors. “Although generally post-verdict juror interviews are disfavored, where there is adequate proof that a juror may have failed to disclose material information on voir dire, a party is entitled to conduct an interview of the juror.” Hillsboro Mgmt., LLC v. Pagono, 112 So. 3d 620, 624 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).

The court stated that while the disclosure of prior litigation by a juror is always relevant, it is not always material. "Here, the prior litigation was potentially material to this slip and fall litigation. At least one of the jurors, Jorge, was involved in a personal injury protection lawsuit and may have participated in other litigation that was relevant and material to the instant case.” 

After establishing the information was material, the movant was still required to establish that the juror concealed the information and that the concealment was not the fault of the movant. On those issues, the court stated: 

The concealment prong is met when the juror is “squarely asked for” the information and the juror fails to speak the truth…. The concealment prong may be met if the juror fails to respond to questions from either the court or the parties. … The nondisclosure need not be intentional to constitute concealment. Here, the concealment prong was met because the court unambiguously asked the challenged jurors whether they or their families were involved in or had been involved in any litigation apart from divorces, and all four categorically answered that they had not.

Finally, the third prong addresses whether the cause of the failure to elicit the information was due to the fault of the complaining party. If a juror mentions involvement in litigation and the complaining party does not ask follow-up questions, the party cannot then obtain a new trial because of undisclosed information relating to the litigation. … However, if the juror unambiguously denies involvement in prior litigation, counsel need not ask follow-up questions. Here, the jurors categorically answered that they had not been involved in prior litigation, in response to a clear question posed by the court. The parties were entitled to rely on the sacrosanct underpinnings of voir dire. The jurors’ answers and nondisclosures were not due to the fault of Pembroke Lakes or Millard.

Non-Delegable Duty of Care

The final issue addressed in the court’s 16 page opinion relates to “McGruder’s claim that the trial court erred by refusing to hold Pembroke Lakes liable for the negligence attributed to Millard.” The court’s opinion provides more analysis than is included here but, generally, the court held as follows:

Section 768.0710 imposes a non-delegable duty of care on business owners to maintain their premises in a reasonably safe condition for invitees ….The premises owner cannot avoid liability for the breach of its statutory duty by contracting the maintenance and cleaning function at the [premises] to others. …. When an owner owes a non-delegable duty of care to a plaintiff who obtains a verdict assigning negligence to the owner and a party contracted by the owner, the owner is jointly and severally liable for the negligence attributed to the contracted party. …. Pembroke Lakes raises numerous arguments in opposition to imposing liability against it for the negligence attributed to Millard. We reject each argument

One of the three arguments discussed, and rejected by the court relates to the difference between a non-delegable duty and vicarious liability. Because it is apparently a source of confusion, the court’s clarification is copied below:

Pembroke Lakes’ argument that a finding of agency is required to impose liability against a premises owner for a breach of a non-delegable duty is incorrect. Pembroke Lakes, like many parties and some courts, erroneously conflates the concepts of non-delegable duty and vicarious liability. … Vicarious liability is a form of indirect liability in which a party, who may have not been negligent, can be held liable for the acts of another party. … In contrast, a breach of a non-delegable duty is a form of direct liability, in which a business owner may be liable to the plaintiff for negligently failing to take reasonable efforts to maintain the premises in a safe condition.  

Florida Supreme Court Reverses Decision That Found Class Action Waivers Unconscionable

In McKenzie Check Advance of Florida, LLC v. Betts (SC11-514), the Florida Supreme Court reversed a decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal that determined a class action waiver provision violated Florida public policy. 

After the Fourth District published its opinion, "the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740, 1744 (2011), addressing the issue of whether the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) 'prohibits States from conditioning the enforceability of certain arbitration agreements on the availability of classwide arbitration procedures.'” In Concepcion, the Supreme Court concluded the California public policy prohibiting class action waivers was preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act. 

In McKenzie, the Florida Supreme Court stated 

Applying the rationale of Concepcion to the facts set forth by the Fourth District in McKenzie, we conclude that the FAA preempts invalidating the class action waiver in this case on the basis of it being void as against public policy. Accordingly, we quash the Fourth District’s decision below. We decline to answer the certified question because it is moot in light of Concepcion. In other words, even if the Fourth District is correct that the class action waiver in this case is void under state public policy, this Court is without authority to invalidate the class action waiver on that basis because federal law and the authoritative decision of the United States Supreme Court in Concepcion preclude us from doing so.

Justice Pariente wrote the opinion for the court. Justice Quince, Justice Canady, Justice Labarga, and Justice Perry concurred. Chief Justice Polston and Justice Lewis concurred in result only.

The Florida Supreme Court's opinion can be viewed HERE.  The Fourth District's opinion, that is now quashed, can be viewed HERE.

Apostrophe-Challenged

In Bradshaw v. Boynton-JCP Associates (4D11-4242), the court reversed an order awarding attorneys fees based upon an offer of judgment because the terms of the offer were not clear. Specifically, the court stated that the offer was "apostrophe-challenged." Regarding the offer in this case, the court stated:

The offer, entitled “Defendant’s Joint Proposal for Settlement,” also appears to have been adopted from a form without sufficient editing; it requires “Plaintiff’(s)” to “execute a stipulation,” and “Plaintiff(s)” to “execute a general release of “Defendant(s).”

The rule requires that “the settlement proposal be sufficiently clear and definite to allow the offeree to make an informed decision without needing clarification. If ambiguity within the proposal could reasonably affect the offeree’s decision, the proposal will not satisfy the particularity requirement.” Therefore, the order awarding fees in this case was reversed.

The opinion can be viewed HERE.

Order Striking Pleadings Requires Express Factual Findings

In a short opinion, the Fourth District reversed an order striking pleadings for failure to make express factual findings. The opinion stated:

[Appellant] seeks reversal of the trial court’s order striking its pleadings and dismissing the case as a sanction for discovery violations.  The Bank asserts that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to make express factual findings demonstrating that such a severe sanction was warranted, as required by Kozel v. Ostendorf, 629 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1993).  We agree and reverse.

The opinion, Deutsche Bank v. Sela (4D11-3093), can be viewed HERE.