17 February

Sticky

Considerations when Multiple Proposals for Settlement are Served on Separate Defendants

I have previously discussed proposals for settlement / offers of judgment (“proposals for settlement”). A proposal for settlement is a statutory vehicle pursuant to both Florida Statute s. 768.79 and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442 to create an argument to recover attorney’s fees based on the judgment amount. (See this article for more on proposals for settlement). For a plaintiff (party seeking affirmative relief), the plaintiff must obtain a judgment 25% greater than the proposal for settlement amount. When there are multiple defendants, the plaintiff needs to serve a proposal for settlement on each defendant. In Cassedy, Jr. v. Wood,44 Fla.L.Weekly...

02 December

0 Comments

Sticky

Proposals for Settlement ONLY Apply to Claims for Monetary Relief

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

While there are times I will serve a proposal for settlement to create an argument to recover attorney’s fees, I always tell clients proposals for settlement create nothing more than an argument. In other words, you cannot bank on actually recovering attorney’s fees because of conflicting case law or case law that finds reasons to invalidate a proposal for settlement. Thus, when I serve a proposal for settlement, I make sure the client’s expectations are tempered. But, when I receive a proposal for settlement on behalf of a client, I make sure the client appreciates that they can be liable for...

28 May

0 Comments

Sticky

General Understanding of Collateral Estoppel and Res Judicata

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal, Standard of Review, Trial Perspectives

There are two similarly related legal doctrines known as collateral estoppel and res judicata. The doctrines are designed to prevent a party from re-litigating either a prior issue (collateral estoppel) or claim (res judicata). These doctrines are generally discussed below regarding the elements (in the case of collateral estoppel) or the identities (in the case of res judicata) required to support their application. Keep in mind that these are nuanced legal doctrines and a party should consult with counsel to determine the application of these doctrines which are typically raised as an affirmative defense in a lawsuit. Collateral Estoppel =...

11 March

0 Comments

Sticky

Moving for an Involuntary Dismissal in a Nonjury Bench Trial

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal, Burden of Proof, Standard of Review

Analogous to a motion for directed verdict in a jury trial, in a nonjury bench trial decided by a judge, a defendant can move for an involuntary dismissal after the plaintiff (party introducing evidence in favor of affirmative relief) puts on his/her case. This is a common motion after the plaintiff in a bench trial puts on his/her case. No different than moving for a directed verdict in a jury trial, it is a motion that carries a high burden since every doubt and inference is given in favor of the plaintiff. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(b) authorizes motions for...

06 May

0 Comments

Sticky

Admitting a Business Record Under the Hearsay Exception

Posted by David Adelstein

in Evidence

If you have perused this blog, then you know if there is a new case discussing the business records exception to the hearsay rule, I am writing about it. The reason being is that it comes up in many business disputes. Lately, there has been a trend where this business records exception comes up in mortgage foreclosure cases where the borrower argues that the lender failed to properly introduce key evidence (such as payment histories) under the business records exception. As a result, the evidence was inadmissible hearsay warranting a reversal of a foreclosure judgment. The recent opinion in Evans v....

17 November

0 Comments

Sticky

What Constitutes an Enforceable Contract?

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal

An enforceable or valid contract requires an offer, acceptance of that offer, consideration, and sufficient specification of material terms. Jericho All-Weather Opportunity Fund, LP v. Pier Seventeen Marina, 41 Fla. L. Weekly D2565a (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). Whether a contract actually constitutes an enforceable contract is subject to a de novo standard of appellate review; this is the same appellate standard of review pertaining to an appeal of a trial court’s interpretation of a contract. See id. The case in Jericho All-Weather Opportunity Fund exemplifies a party suing on the wrong contract and, thus, an appellate court reversing a judgment in...

03 November

0 Comments

Sticky

Prevailing Party for Purposes of Attorney’s Fees in Breach of Contract Claims

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

To be entitled to attorney’s fees, there needs to be a contractual or statutory basis to recover attorney’s fees (absent serving a proposal for settlement). There is oftentimes the misconception in breach of contract cases that the party that recovers a positive net judgment will automatically recover their attorney’s fees. While, certainly, sometimes this is the case, this is NOT what you should be banking on. The law has tried to progress to a point where it does not want certain cases to be driven solely by the prospect of recovering attorney’s fees just because you won $1. The Florida Supreme Court in Moritz v....

16 October

0 Comments

Sticky

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

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

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...

07 April

0 Comments

Sticky

Difference Between Lay Opinion Testimony and Expert Opinion Testimony

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal, Evidence, Standard of Review

Although I have numerous blog articles regarding the appellate standard of review when it comes to the admissibility of evidence, it is important to remember that “[a] trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of evidence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion; however, the trial court’s interpretation of the evidence code is reviewed de novo.” L.L. v. The State of Florida, 41 Fla.L.Weekly D854a (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). In L.L., a criminal case, a police officer testified that he smelled the strong odor of marijuana from the defendant and that a plastic bag in defendant’s possession contained marijuana. The defendant objected...

26 September

0 Comments

Sticky

Judicial Notice of a Court’s File does NOT Circumvent Inadmissible Hearsay

Posted by David Adelstein

in Evidence

Judicial notice is the “cognizance of certain facts which judges or jurors may properly take and act upon without proof, because they already know them.” Wyatt v. State, 270 So.2d 47, 48 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972) (quotation and citation omitted). A court may take judicial notice of “[r]ecords of any court of this state or of any court of record of the United States or of any state, territory, or jurisdiction of the United States.” Fla.Stat. s. 90.202(6). However, just because a court can take judicial notice of records in the court’s file cannot be used to circumvent otherwise inadmissible hearsay statements...