18 March

Sticky

The Not Widely Known Harris Act: Protection of Private Property Rights

There is a Florida statute not universally known called the “Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act” and oftentimes called the "Harris Act" for ease of reference. The Harris Act is embodied in Florida Statute s. 70.001 (found here) and it deals with the protection of private property rights. More specifically, it provides a private cause of action when the existing use (or vested rights) of property is inordinately burdened by the Florida government (including agencies thereof). The Harris Act has some teeth in certain situations, as demonstrated below in a case example, and is a good...

04 March

0 Comments

Sticky

Yes, There is Such a Thing Called Apparent Authority

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

“But he did NOT have the authority….” This is the beginning of a sentence that does not start well. Agents have the authority to bind their principal. “Even where there is no express agent/principal relationship, a principal may be bound by the acts of an agent acting with apparent authority.” Clayton v. Poggendorf, 43 Fla.L.Weekly D436a (Fla. 4th DCA 2018). Apparent authority sometimes gets lost in the shuffle and the reason why the sentence, “But he did not have the authority…,” does not start well. If the person is deemed to have apparent authority then he did have the authority to bind...

18 February

0 Comments

Sticky

Defamation Per Se Opens Door for Punitive Damages

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

A defamation per se action opens the door for punitive damages even if actual damages cannot be shown or proven. Lawnwood Medical Center, Inc. v. Sadow, 43 So.3d 710, 729 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). This is because malice is presumed and, thus, the statements are presumed harmful as a matter of law. Id. However, “proof of liability for defamation per se requires a showing that the declarant knew or should have known the defamatory statement was not true.” Tilton v. Wrobel, 198 So.3d 909 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). Hence, while a claimant may not be able to prove actual damages...

11 February

0 Comments

Sticky

Homestead Protection does Not Attach to Corporation (as Judgment Debtor Found Out!)

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

There are times where (potential) judgment debtors try to be way to crafty. And, guess what, it doesn’t always work! A recent case exemplifies this point. In DeJesus v. A.M.J.R.K. Corp., 43 Fla. L. Weekly D331a (Fla. 2d DCA 2017), a plaintiff sued a defendant corporation in a personal injury action. During the litigation, the defendant corporation transferred residential property it owned to its sole shareholder. This was done through a quitclaim deed and was obviously done as a down and dirty asset protection technique. Of course, the quitclaim deed lacked consideration and was defective – the transfer was invalid. The plaintiff...

30 January

0 Comments

Sticky

Requests for Admissions as a Discovery Tool

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

Requests for Admissions are one of my favorite discovery tools in litigation. Requests for Admissions are designed to narrow the disputed facts by requiring the recipient of the request to admit or deny the requested fact. These should be served with the objective of having the recipient admit the requested fact. If the recipient does admit the fact, then the fact is a stipulated fact – it does not need to be proved at trial because it is stipulated to. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.380(c) provides: (c) Expenses on Failure to Admit. If a party fails to admit the genuineness of any...

24 January

0 Comments

Sticky

Proving Defense of Unilateral Mistake

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

One affirmative defense to a breach of contract claim is the defense known as “unilateral mistake.” This is not an easy defense to prove and the party asserting this as a defense has the burden to prove it. Under this defense, the argument is that the contract cannot be enforced because there was a unilateral mistake that induced the party into entering into the contract. To prove the affirmative defense of unilateral mistake, the party asserting this defense must prove the following four elements: “(1) [T]he mistake was induced by the party seeking to benefit from the mistake, (2) there is no...

14 January

0 Comments

Sticky

Public Body is Afforded Sovereign Immunity

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

When it comes to pursuing a claim against a public body in Florida, you need to consider the application of sovereign immunity. This stands for the premise that the "king can do no wrong." Sovereign immunity is an important issue and will dictate the types of claims you pursue against a public body, whether you pursue a claim against a public body, and the conditions precedent to pursuing such a claim against a public body. Public bodies are afforded sovereign immunity with a limited waiver of sovereign immunity set forth in Florida Statute s. 768.28. The limited waiver of sovereign immunity...

09 January

0 Comments

Sticky

Do Yourself a Favor: Have a Court Reporter at Important Hearings

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal, Trial Perspectives

Make sure to have a court reporter at any substantive hearing, particularly a hearing that could result in an appeal. Here is why. In a slip and fall action, Lago v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 42 Fla. L. Weekly D2599a (Fla. 3d DCA 2017), the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant. The trial court’s summary judgment order provided NO elaboration or reasoning as to the basis of granting the summary judgment. It was probably a simple order that stated that the defendant’s motion for summary judgment was granted. This does not provide a whole lot of comfort to...

30 December

0 Comments

Sticky

Civil Recourse against Issuer of Worthless Check

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

Florida has a worthless check statute (Florida Statute s. 68.065) that authorizes treble damages plus the original amount of the check owing if a party issues a worthless check. This statute affords a strong civil remedy for a party (payee) that receives a worthless check. The statute provides in material portion: In any civil action brought for the purpose of collecting a payment instrument, the payment of which is refused by the drawee because of lack of funds, lack of credit, or lack of an account, or where the maker or drawer stops payment on the instrument with intent to defraud, and where...

16 December

0 Comments

Sticky

New Trial Warranted for Prejudicially Inflaming the Jury

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

Jury trials do contain a degree of theatrics, particularly when it comes to opening and closing statements. The objective is to persuasively demonstrate to the jury your theme of the dispute – what the evidence will show (in the opening statement) and what the evidence reveals that supports your theme and the application of the law (in the closing statement). This does not mean, however, that you can intentionally and prejudicially inflame the passions of the jury. Doing so will result in a new trial, and oftentimes, an unnecessary new trial. An example of this can be found in the case...