08 September

Sticky

You Can’t Sue Someone for Unjust Enrichment when there is a Contract

You cannot sue someone for unjust enrichment (or quantum meruit) if there is a contract between the parties. You can sue them for breach of contract; but you cannot try to circumvent the parameters of the contract by suing them for unjust enrichment (an equitable quasi-contract theory of liability). For example, in Sterling Breeze Owners' Association, Inc. v. New Sterling Resorts, LLC, 43 Fla.L.Weekly D2040c (Fla. 1st DCA 2018), a condominium association sued the developer for, among other claims, unjust enrichment. The claim stemmed from the fact that the developer (in developing the condominium) reserved in the condominium documents ground...

01 September

0 Comments

Sticky

Premise Liability Claims and Duties of Owners to Invitees

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

Owners of real property are oftentimes concerned about the prospect of premise liability claims when people are invited onto their property. What happens if an invitee, such as a business invitee, gets hurt on the owner’s premises? What duty, in particular, does the owner of the real property owe to invitees? The owner or occupier of real property owes two duties to business invitees, namely [1] a duty to “use ordinary care in keeping the premises in a reasonably safe condition” and [2] a duty to warn of latent or concealed hazards that the owner/occupier knew or should have known about...

26 August

0 Comments

Sticky

Incentive for Taking Case on Contingency – the Contingency Fee Multiplier

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

A recent appellate decision came out regarding contingency fee multipliers--the incentive for taking a case on contingency. I included a thorough discussion on the requirements establishing a contingency fee multiplier here. Check out this discussion that goes into establishing reasonable attorney's fees and then the contingency fee multiplier. Notably, in this case, the appellate court affirmed that the elements associated with establishing an entitlement to a contingency fee multiplier are as follows: (1) whether the relevant market requires a contingency fee multiplier to obtain competent counsel (i.e., whether there are attorneys in the relevant market and would have taken the case on...

20 August

0 Comments

Sticky

Sufficient Factual Detail to Support Four Prongs of Temporary Injunction

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal, Standard of Review, Trial Perspectives

“An order on a motion for temporary injunction entered by a trial court must be based on [1] the likelihood of irreparable harm, [2] the unavailability of an adequate remedy at law, [3] the substantial likelihood of success on the merits, and [4] considerations of public interest.” XIP Technologies, LLC v. Ascend Global Services, LLC, 43 Fla.L.Weekly D1850a (Fla. 2d DCA 2018). A trial court’s order granting a temporary injunction must contain clear factual detail to support each of these four prongs. Id. A trial court has discretion to grant or deny a motion for temporary injunction. Its discretion, however, is...

12 August

0 Comments

Sticky

Inducement is NOT a Required Element in Proving the Defense of Unilateral Mistake

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal, Trial Perspectives

Earlier this year I wrote an article regarding proving the defense of unilateral mistake. In that article, I discussed a case where the appellate court ruled a party asserting the defense of unilateral mistake must prove that the mistake was induced by the party seeking to benefit from the mistake. Based on this opinion, a party moved for a rehearing en banc under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.331--see applicable portion of 9.331(d)(1)--arguing that in some prior opinions the appellate court required a party asserting unilateral mistake to prove inducement, and in other decisions it did not. The appellate court granted...

21 July

0 Comments

Sticky

Serving a Florida Statute s. 57.105 Motion for Sanctions

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

Appellate courts have been all over the place regarding how to serve a motion for sanctions under Florida Statute s. 57.105 that it has become borderline ridiculous. Of course, this is my opinion, but the ridiculousness prompts the question mark in the photo. A motion for sanctions under s. 57.105 is served when a claim or defense is NOT supported by material facts or is NOT supported by the application of then-existing law to the material facts and the party or party’s counsel knew or should have known of same. Stated more simplistically, this motion gives rise when a claim...

13 July

0 Comments

Sticky

Quick Note: Action for Declaratory Relief to Obtain a Certificate of Title

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

Recently, I have received a spate of phone calls relating to filing a lawsuit for declaratory relief to establish ownership of a motor vehicle. As a result of these calls, I decided to write a quick note about this subject. This issue is prompted by a person going to Florida’s Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (“DMV”) and the DMV telling the person, or sending the person a letter, that he/she needs to file a lawsuit for declaratory relief in order to obtain a court order awarding ownership of the motor vehicle to the person and directing the DMV to...

07 July

0 Comments

Sticky

Quick Note: Interpretation of a Contract (Policy) is for the Court, Not the Jury

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal, Trial Perspectives

The construction / interpretation of a contract including an insurance policy is a question of law. This means it is for the court, not the jury, to interpret a contract. While there are times parties may prefer to delegate this responsibility to a jury, this is not allowed. In a recent property insurance coverage dispute, the insured, over the insurer's objection, was able to get jury instructions instructing to the jury regarding the interpretation of the insurance policy. On appeal, the appellate remanded the case back to the trial court for a new trial, as the interpretation of the policy...

28 June

0 Comments

Sticky

Condominium’s Declaration is a Contract

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

A condominium’s declaration is a contract. As a unit owner, it serves as your contract and will govern your rights with your condominium association. Just like any contract, disputes arise between a unit owner and the association regarding the interpretation of the declaration. And, no different than any contract, the interpretation of a declaration is reviewed under a de novo standard of appellate review. See Lenzi v. The Regency Tower Ass’n, 43 Fla.L.Weekly D1397a (Fla. 4th DCA 2018). Lenzi serves as an example of a dispute involving a condominium unit owner and his association regarding the interpretation of a provision in...

23 June

0 Comments

Sticky

Equitable Estoppel Circumstances to Allow Non-Signatory to Compel Arbitration

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal, Trial Perspectives

Arbitration is a creature of contract, meaning if you want your disputes to be resolved by arbitration through an arbitrator (as opposed to litigation with a judge and/or jury), you need to include an arbitration provision in your contract. A trial court granting or denying a party’s motion to compel arbitration is a non-final order that is immediately appealable. See Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv). There are times that a non-signatory to a contract with an arbitration provision wants to compel arbitration. For example, a signatory to a contract (with an arbitration provision) files suit against a non-party and the non-party moves to compel...