30 July

Sticky

Not All Non-Final Orders are Immediately Appealable

Many non-final orders are NOT immediately appealable. The immediate right to appeal non-final orders are enumerated in Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130. (And, prior postings have discussed the burden in moving for a writ of certiorari based on a non-final order.) Fair or unfair. These are the rules that govern appellate proceedings. When you receive a non-final order that you believe impacts rights and decisions moving forward, make sure to review Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130 regarding those immediately appealable non-final orders. In a recent insurance coverage dispute (discussed here), the trial court declared that the insurer had a...

22 July

0 Comments

Sticky

Properly Pleading the Affirmative Defense of the Nonperformance or Nonoccurrence of Conditions Precedent

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

The nonperformance of conditions precedent must be pled with particularity. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.120(c) provides: Conditions Precedent. In pleading the performance or occurrence of conditions precedent, it is sufficient to aver generally that all conditions precedent have been performed or occurred. A denial of performance or occurrence shall be made specifically and with particularity. It is common for a plaintiff to generally plead in its complaint, “All conditions precedent have been performed or have occurred.” A defendant may want to assert an affirmative defense attacking or denying this allegation relating to the plaintiff’s failure to satisfy certain conditions precedent. In...

15 July

0 Comments

Sticky

Insurance Policy Construction is a Question of Law

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal, Standard of Review

I am sure you have an insurance policy...

09 July

0 Comments

Sticky

Courts do Not Favor the Technical (Oops!) Wins

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

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...