09 July

Sticky

Courts do Not Favor the Technical (Oops!) Wins

Many rules of civil procedure are liberally construed to prevent the "oops!" or “gotcha!” tactic if a rule is not perfectly complied with. Courts are hesitant to allow another party to prevail merely because its opposition committed a technical or procedural error. Technical wins are generally not favored, as long as there is a reasonable / excusable basis to justify why the technical error occurred. Courts want parties to prevail on the merits of their dispute and not on who wins a procedural error. An example of this general philosophy is the case of Well Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Shelton, 42 Fla....

01 July

0 Comments

Sticky

Civil Conspiracy – Not Just a Claim in the Criminal Context

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

We think of the word “conspiracy” in the criminal context. A criminal conspiracy. Sounds bad. Real bad. But, there is a cause of action in the civil context called “civil conspiracy.” Granted, this is a fact-based claim that is challenging to prove at trial, but nevertheless, such a claim exists if you can prove that co-conspirators conspired to commit an intentional tort or an intentional wrong. The Third District Court of Appeal in MP, LLC v. Sterling Holding, LLC, 2017 WL 2794218 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) recently explained a claim for civil conspiracy: The elements of a claim for civil conspiracy...

25 June

0 Comments

Sticky

Timely Move for Appellate Attorney’s Fees (if You have a Basis!)

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal

Moving for appellate attorney’s fees? If you do, make sure you TIMELY file a motion! Appeals take time...

18 June

0 Comments

Sticky

Seller’s Remorse can have Consequences, Particularly when the Seller Acts in Bad Faith

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

Seller’s Remorse? We all have experienced buyer’s remorse in some fashion, but what about seller’s remorse? Perhaps talked about less than buyer’s remorse, but sellers can have regrets too. This, however, does not mean that a seller’s remorse can go consequence-free, particularly when the seller backs out of a deal or sabotages the deal because of seller’s remorse. For instance, what if a seller of real property signs a deal to sell her property and then realizes she could have gotten some more money for the same property? Can she simply back out of the deal or proactively prevent certain...

11 June

0 Comments

Sticky

Cause of Action for Tortious Interference with a Business Relationship

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

Business relationships are important. It is all about relationships in all walks of life! What if someone interferes with your business relationship? What if that interference is intentional or unjustifiable? There is a cause of action known as tortious interference with a business relationship. Monco Enterprises, Inc. v. Ziebart Corp., 673 So.2d 491 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (“Tort liability for interference with prospective contractual relationships is generally recognized.”) A plaintiff asserting this cause of action must PROVE the following elements: (1) The existence of a business relationship; (2) The defendant had knowledge of the business relationship; (3) The defendant intentionally and unjustifiably interfered with the...

04 June

0 Comments

Sticky

Restrictive Language in Employment Agreement

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

Woo-hoo! I got a real good J-O-B! Great pay. Great benefits. Great location. Doing what I want to be doing with my skillset. My new employer wants me to sign an employment agreement, but I have signed such agreements in the past, so this is no big deal. Or, is it a big deal? There are many professions that want certain employees to sign an employment agreement that includes a restrictive covenant, i.e., anti-compete or anti-solicitation language. The employer does not want to train the employee, give the employee access to its trade secret information, customer lists, internal marketing material, pricing...

27 May

0 Comments

Sticky

Malicious Prosecution Arising from Judicial Proceedings–There are Consequences

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

There is the sentiment that parties can say and do whatever they want in a judicial proceeding and all actions will be exempt and immune under a litigation privilege. Such sentiment is misguided. There are consequences for malicious / bad faith conduct and statements that cause damage to the adverse party including a claim for malicious prosecution. The litigation privilege does NOT bar a claim for malicious prosecution because, as mentioned above, there are consequences for malicious conduct. See Debrincat v. Fischer, 2017 WL 526508 (Fla. 2017). This issue was recently confirmed by the Florida Supreme Court where the Court explained...

21 May

0 Comments

Sticky

Motion for Summary Judgment – No Genuine Issue of Material Fact

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

A motion for summary judgment is a dispositive motion that is popularly filed before trial. However, it is a motion that is denied far more than it is granted because of the burden imposed on the party moving for summary judgment in order to prevail on the motion. “Summary judgment is appropriate ‘if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, affidavits, and other materials as would be admissible in evidence on file show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.’” Lin v....

14 May

0 Comments

Sticky

Fraud in the Performance of a Contract

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

Claims for fraudulent inducement and fraudulent misrepresentation are claims that are oftentimes pled despite there being a contract being the parties. Besides these claims being fact-based and challenging to prove in certain instances, they are harder when there is a contract between the parties. Fraud is only actionable if it is separate and distinct from the contract. In other words, fraud needs to give rise to a tort claim independent of the contract; a breach of contract is not fraud because the fraud is not independent of the contractual breach. See Peebles v. Puig, 42 Fla.L.Weekly D1080a (Fla. 3d DCA...

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....