18 June

Sticky

Appeals Regarding Personal Jurisdiction

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...

02 June

0 Comments

Sticky

Know the Best Evidence Rule

Posted by David Adelstein

in Evidence

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. 4th 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...

30 May

0 Comments

Sticky

“Other Products” Evidence to Support Alternate Causation Theory

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal, Evidence, Standard of Review

The recent case of Arizona Chemical Company, LLC v. Mohawk Industries, Inc., 41 Fla. L. Weekly D1213a (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) is a case I discussed regarding lost profit damages. Check out that article here. But, this case also raised an interesting trial and appellate issue involving “other products” evidence to support an alternate causation argument, such as when a specific product or manufactured component fails. This case involved a manufacturer of a specific brand of carpet suing the manufacturer of resin that was used in manufacturing the failed carpet brand. The carpet manufacturer claimed that the resin failure caused an...

21 May

0 Comments

Sticky

Motion for Directed Verdict (or to Set Aside the Verdict) is an Important Trial Consideration

Posted by David Adelstein

in Evidence, Standard of Review

After the plaintiff puts on its case-in-chief, you, as the defendant, move for a directed verdict. (Check out this article too for more on directed verdicts.) The court denies the motion for a directed verdict. You put on your defense and then the case is submitted to the jury. The jury returns a verdict in favor the plaintiff. You then move to set aside the verdict (also called a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict). The trial court denies your motion and enters final judgment consistent with the jury’s verdict. You appeal the trial court’s denial of the motion for...

15 May

0 Comments

Sticky

Proving Your Case Through Circumstantial Evidence

Posted by David Adelstein

in Evidence

The plaintiff puts on her case through circumstantial evidence so that inferences can be drawn from that evidence. The defendant moves for a directed verdict after the plaintiff put on her case through circumstantial evidence. The trial court denies the motion and the jury enters a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant appeals the trial court's denial of the motion for a directed verdict. The standard of review for the denial of a motion for directed verdict is de novo. Broward Executive Builders, Inc. v. Zota, 41 Fla.L.Weekly D1126a (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). In Broward Executive Builders, the plaintiff, a painter, fell...

04 May

0 Comments

Sticky

Trial Court’s Error is Harmless when there is No Reasonable Possibility Error Contributed to Verdict

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal, Trial Perspectives

Just because the trial court committed an error does NOT mean the error constitutes reversible error warranting a new trial. The trial court's error could very well be harmless error. When it comes to a trial court's error, the recipient of the error should prove that "there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the verdict." Maines v. Fox, 41 Fla.L.Weekly D1062a (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) quoting Special v. W. Boca Med. Ctr., 160 So.3d 1251, 1256-57 (Fla. 2014). The trial court's error is harmless if the recipient of the error proves there is no reasonable possibility that the...

27 April

0 Comments

Sticky

Parol Evidence Inadmissible to Determine Intent of Unambiguous Agreement

Posted by David Adelstein

in Uncategorized

Extrinsic or parol evidence is inadmissible to determine the meaning or intent of an unambiguous agreement. See Restoration 1 CFL v. State Farm Ins. Co., 2016 WL 1600331 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (error to allow deposition testimony regarding party’s interpretation of assignment when assignment agreement was unambiguous). “The parol-evidence rule is a substantive rule of law and reduced to its essence, provides that a written document intended by the parties to be the final embodiment of their agreement may not be contradicted, modified or varied by parol evidence.” King v. Bray, 867 So.2d 1224, 1226 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016). While there is...

24 April

0 Comments

Sticky

Is Your Expert Qualified to Render the Opinions?

Posted by David Adelstein

in Expert Testimony

You retained an expert witness. You want the expert witness to serve as a testifying expert -- to testify at trial to help support a claim or a defense. But, is your expert qualified to render the opinions you want him/her to render? Stated differently, does the expert have the expertise, knowledge, skill, education, training, or experience to render the opinion (as required by Florida Statute s. 90.702)? This is crucial since if he/she does not, he/she will NOT be qualified as an expert witness. Make sure the expert you retain is qualified to render the opinions you want him/her...

23 April

0 Comments

Sticky

A Promissory Note is NOT Hearsay

Posted by David Adelstein

in Evidence

A promissory note is NOT regarded as hearsay. This means a party introducing a promissory note does not need to lay down the foundation to a hearsay exception such as the business records exception in order to admit the note into evidence. The Fifth District Court of Appeal in Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., Etc. v. Alaqua Property, Etc., 41 Fla.L.WeeklyD994b (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) explained that a promissory note in a foreclosure action is NOT hearsay because it is NOT being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted; rather, the note has independent legal significance, that being “to establish the existence of...

18 April

0 Comments

Sticky

Election of Remedies PRIOR to Final Judgment

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

Oftentimes, a plaintiff will plead alternative claims or theories of liability against a defendant(s). Pleading in the alternative is allowed under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.110(g). The plaintiff is entitled to elect--between two mutually exclusive (alternative) remedies--the remedy it prefers any time prior to the entry of final judgment. See Liddle v. A.F. Dozer, Inc., 777 So.2d 421 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); see also Burr v. Norris, 667 So.2d 424, 426 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (“Plaintiffs are also allowed to plead inconsistent or alternative actions and need only elect remedies before final judgment.”) This allows the plaintiff to present...