16 October

Sticky

Proposals for Settlement when there is a Contractual or Statutory Basis for Attorney’s Fees

In an earlier posting I talked about proposals for settlement / offers of judgment. Again, these are used as a vehicle to create an argument for attorney’s fees down the road, particularly in cases where a party does not have a contractual or statutory basis to recover attorney’s fees. Please check out this article for more information on proposals for settlement because they have become an unnecessarily complicated vehicle with nuances that have resulted in an exorbitant amount of case law. As a result, while the argument to recover fees is preserved by serving the proposal for settlement, it is...

06 October

0 Comments

Sticky

The Simple, All-or-Nothing Verdict Form

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

Attention should be given to the verdict form you want the jury to fill out after listening to and seeing the evidence presented in the case. This verdict form dictates how the jury decides the facts in your case in the context of the theme of your case and the jury instructions. Needless to say, the verdict form is very, very important! There are times when a party may want a simple, all-or-nothing verdict form. A party may like this (such as the plaintiff) versus a special interrogatory form that contains numerous potentially confusing questions the jury is asked to answer. For...

01 October

0 Comments

Sticky

Business Records Exception (to Hearsay Rule) When Business Takes Custody of Another’s Records

Posted by David Adelstein

in Evidence

If you have looked through the articles on this blog before, you will know that the business records exception to the hearsay rule is a very important hearsay exception in business disputes (or any dispute involving business records!). The business records exception requires a proper foundation to be laid by a witness before the records are admitted into evidence to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the records. The proper foundation requires the witness to show that "(1) the record was made at or near the time of the event; (2) was made by or from information transmitted by a...

16 September

0 Comments

Sticky

Moving to Enforce the Appellate Court’s Mandate

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal

When an appellate opinion is issued (and after any post-opinion motions have been resolved or the timing to file same has expired), oftentimes the matter is remanded back to the trial court to implement the appellate court’s opinion or mandate. This mandate is the “official mode of communicating the judgment of the appellate court to the lower court, directing the action to be taken or the disposition to be made of the cause by the trial court.” Tierney v. Tierney, 290 So.2d 136, 137 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974). In other words, once that mandate is issued, the trial court is obligated...

03 September

0 Comments

Sticky

Improperly Admitting Hearsay can still be Harmless Error

Posted by David Adelstein

in Evidence

I have discussed the hearsay rule (the evidentiary exclusionary rule and the numerous exceptions) ad nauseam and will continue to do so because it is such an important aspect of a civil trial. There will invariably be an objection under the hearsay rule during trial. The trial court will either sustain the objection or overrule the objection, perhaps under an exception to the hearsay rule. What if a trial court makes a mistake—it happens—and overrules a hearsay objection and admits hearsay evidence? As previously mentioned, an appellate court will review the admission of evidence under an abuse of discretion standard of...

24 August

0 Comments

Sticky

Actions for Declaratory Relief / Declaratory Judgment

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

Sometimes a party pursues what is known as an action for declaratory relief or declaratory judgment– for a trial court to declare their rights with respect to the application of a written document or instrument. In this manner, Florida Statute s. 86.021 states: Any person claiming to be interested or who may be in doubt about his or her rights under a deed, will, contract, or other article, memorandum, or instrument in writing or whose rights, status, or other equitable or legal relations are affected by a statute, or any regulation made under statutory authority, or by municipal ordinance, contract, deed,...

20 August

0 Comments

Sticky

Foundation Required to Admit Prior Inconsistent Statement

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

One of the most effective impeachment vehicles to attack the credibility of a testifying witness is the prior inconsistent statement. A prior inconsistent statement is exactly what it seems – a statement previously made by the witness on a material issue that directly contradicts with what the witness is testifying to at trial. The point of impeaching the witness with the prior inconsistent statement is to show the witness’ trial testimony is not credible—they are lying. By attacking the credibility, you leave doubts in the trier of fact’s mind (e.g., jury) that the witness’ trial testimony needs to be discounted...

07 August

0 Comments

Sticky

Leading Questions Forming Basis of Appeal

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

During a direct examination at trial, a party will always tiptoe on the fine line of asking the witness leading questions in order to elicit the desired testimony. Leading questions, in most circumstances, are objectionable during direct examination because it allows the lawyer asking questions to basically testify while leading the witness to the answer he or she is seeking. Look, a lawyer will ask leading questions if he/she can get away with it—until the trial court sustains objections. But, just because a trial court sustains an objection does not necessarily mean the lawyer will stop asking leading questions during direct...

27 July

0 Comments

Sticky

Avoiding the Mistrial

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

If you prevailed at trial, there is nothing worse than a mistrial. Talking about taking the wind out of your sails. It happens. Unfortunately. Boyles, Personal Representative vs. Dillard’s Inc., 41 Fla.L.Weekly D1709a (Fla. 1st DCA 2016), is a case where the defense prevailed, but on appeal, the court granted a mistrial for multiple (or cumulative) reasons, only two of which will be discussed below. Both reasons, however, could have been avoided. A. Closing Argument First, during closing argument, the defense counsel tried to attack the credibility of the plaintiff’s trial testimony by bringing up what the plaintiff testified to during her deposition....

24 July

0 Comments

Sticky

Appealing Trial Court’s Interpretation of Contract

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal, Standard of Review

Many disputes turn on the interpretation of a contract, contractual term, or written document. When the trial court rules on the interpretation, there will typically be a party that disagrees with the court’s interpretation. In these instances, this party will appeal the trial court’s interpretation. There is a value to appeal because the appellate standard of review is de novo meaning the appellate court will review the trial court’s record anew without giving deference to the trial court’s interpretation. The interpretation of a written contract is a question of law and the appellate court construes the contract under a de novo...

Author: David Adelstein