As a lawyer, it is important to examine your client or prospective client regarding the facts of their case. In this manner, it is important to conduct legal research to support legal arguments, especially arguments applied to the facts. The bottom line is that you want to make sure you are NOT filing a frivolous claim or defense, which is typically one that (a) is NOT supported by material facts necessary to support the claim or defense or (b) NOT supported by the application of the law. See Fla. Stat. s. 57.105. If you do, you could be exposed to sanctions—be liable for the opposing party’s attorney’s fees and costs. But such exposure can also run to the lawyer.

Florida Statute s. 57.105 provides:

(1) Upon the court’s initiative or motion of any party, the court shall award a reasonable attorney’s fee, including prejudgment interest, to be paid to the prevailing party in equal amounts by the losing party and the losing party’s attorney on any claim or defense at any time during a civil proceeding or action in which the court finds that the losing party or the losing party’s attorney knew or should have known that a claim or defense when initially presented to the court or at any time before trial:

(a) Was not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the claim or defense; or

(b) Would not be supported by the application of then-existing law to those material facts.

***

(4) A motion by a party seeking sanctions under this section must be served but may not be filed with or presented to the court unless, within 21 days after service of the motion, the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, allegation, or denial is not withdrawn or appropriately corrected.

There are attorneys that will serve what is known as a “57.105 motion for sanctions” telling you that unless you dismiss the claim or defense within 21 days (known as the safe harbor time period) they will file the motion and seek fees and costs associated with the claim for defense.  Some attorneys do this as an intimidation tactic.  Notwithstanding, an attorney should consider the substance and merits of the motion.

But, what if a party’s 57.105 motion is defective or they do not give the 21 days safe harbor time period? In a recent decision Watson v. Stewart Tilghman Fox & Bianchi, P.A., 41 Fla. L. Weekly D1523a (Fla. 4^th DCA 2016), a party served a defective 57.105 motion for sanctions. Nonetheless, the trial court still awarded sanctions (fees and costs) against the plaintiff and her lawyer on the court’s own initiative based on the frivolousness of the plaintiff’s lawsuit.   The appellate court held that a trial court can award sanctions (fees and costs) on its own initiative (based on the frivolousness of the claim) and, if it does so, the 21 day safe harbor provision does not apply. OUCH!  

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

Please follow and like us:

If there is a jury trial, there will be a motion for directed verdict. But, the standard for granting a motion for directed verdict is challenging; if the directed verdict is granted, an appeal will be filed arguing the trial court’s error in granting the directed verdict.

James v. City of Tampa, 2016 WL 3201221 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) was a personal injury action. The issue at trial was whether the plaintiff’s injuries from a car accident constituted a permanent injury (as this issue impacted damages to be awarded to the injured plaintiff). At the conclusion of all of the evidence, the trial court granted the defendant’s motion for directed verdict on the issue of whether the plaintiff suffered a permanent injury, meaning the directed verdict prevented the jury from considering whether the injuries were permanent, and if so, damages associated with the permanent injuries. Naturally, the plaintiff appealed.

Regarding the challenging burden in granting a motion for directed verdict:

A motion for directed verdict should be granted only where no view of the evidence, or inferenced made therefrom, could support a verdict for the nonmoving party. In considering a motion for directed verdict, the court must evaluate the testimony in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and every reasonable inference deduced from the evidence must be indulged in favor of the nonmoving party. In there are conflicts in the evidence or different or reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the evidence, the issue is factual and should be submitted to the jury. The standard of review on appeal of the trial court’s ruling on a defendant’s motion for directed verdict is the same test used by the trial court in ruling on the motion.

James, supra, quoting Sims v. Cristinzio, 898 So.2d 1004, 1005-06 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).

Here, the appellate court had no choice but to reverse the directed verdict remanding the matter back to the trial court for a new trial as to damages. The plaintiff put on expert testimony regarding the issue of permanent damages and the defendant cross-examined the plaintiff and presented its own rebutting expert. Thus, the issue of permanency was really a question for the jury as the directed verdict would only be appropriate where “the evidence of injury and causation is such that no reasonable inference could support a jury verdict for the plaintiff…on the permanency issue.” James, supra.

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

Please follow and like us:

In a matter where a commercial landlord sued its tenant’s personal guarantors as the result of the tenant’s breach of the lease, the guarantors moved to dismiss the lawsuit based on personal jurisdiction. Check here for more on this matter.

A trial court’s ruling on personal jurisdiction is an immediately appealable ruling–a trial court’s determination relating to personal jurisdiction is an immediately appealable non-final order (non-final order meaning the order does not finally dispose of the lawsuit). See Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i).

A determination on personal jurisdiction is an important issue. If a court grants a motion to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction, this means you cannot sue that entity in that state, e.g., Florida. And, if a court denies a motion to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction, this means the moving party is subject to a lawsuit in that state, e.g., Florida. For this reason, the determination is appealable. The moving party will want to appeal if the court denies its motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and it is now subject to being sued in Florida. Conversely, the plaintiff (suing party) will want to appeal if the court grants the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and the plaintiff can no longer sue that party in Florida.

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

Please follow and like us:

I previously discussed the best evidence rule.   Check out the article for more information on this evidentiary rule. It is important to know the best evidence rule when litigating negotiable instruments or even contractual disputes.  You do not want to try such a dispute without understanding the application of the best evidence rule.

The recent mortgage foreclosure case of Rattigan v. Central Mortgage Company, 41 Fla. L. Weekly D1312a (Fla. 4^th DCA 2016) is an example of the application of the best evidence rule. In this case, the lender at trial failed to introduce the written loan modification to a promissory note that increased the principal amount of the note.   The modification to the note was a different instrument than the original note (that was modified). The lender was proceeding on the loan modification and not the original note.  The Fourth District held that the lender:

[V]iolated the best evidence rule by virtue of its failure to introduce the [written] modification at trial (either the original or duplicate with an explanation as to why the original note was unavailable…Without the introduction of the modification, all testimony regarding the contents of that modification…was erroneous. As a result, there is no proper evidence in the record which could support the final judgment.

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

Please follow and like us: