16 July

Sticky

Illegality of Contract as Affirmative Defense

There is an affirmative defense known as “illegality of contract.” Under this defense, the defendant is claiming that performance under its contract became illegal to perform; thus, the defendant should be excused from further performance. Just like any affirmative defense, the burden is on the defendant to prove the illegality of contract. See Novak v. Gray, 469 Fed. Appx. 811, 813-14 (11th Cir. 2012) (defendant has burden of proving defense of illegality of contract). An example of the application of this defense can be found in the dispute between a commercial landlord and its tenant in Lucas Games, Inc. v. Morris...

09 July

0 Comments

Sticky

Asserting Punitive Damages (or Appealing the Decision to Allow for Punitive Damages)

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal, Standard of Review, Trial Perspectives

So, you are interested in pursuing punitive damages. Then you MUST comply with the requirements of Florida Statute s. 768.72. This statute provides in relevant part: (1) In any civil action, no claim for punitive damages shall be permitted unless there is a reasonable showing by evidence in the record or proffered by the claimant which would provide a reasonable basis for recovery of such damages. The claimant may move to amend her or his complaint to assert a claim for punitive damages as allowed by the rules of civil procedure. The rules of civil procedure shall be liberally construed so...

30 June

0 Comments

Sticky

Just Say NO! to Frivolous Claims! Otherwise 57.105 May Apply!

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

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...

25 June

0 Comments

Sticky

Challenging Standard for Granting Directed Verdict

Posted by David Adelstein

in Evidence, Trial Perspectives

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...

18 June

0 Comments

Sticky

Appeals Regarding Personal Jurisdiction

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal

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...

Author: David Adelstein