01 January

Sticky

Quick Note: An Ambiguous Agreement will Lead to Admissibility of Parol Evidence

In an earlier article I explained that parol evidence (extrinsic evidence) is inadmissible to determine the intent of an unambiguous agreement. The corollary is that parol evidence is admissible to determine the intent of an ambiguous agreement. Naturally, parties want their agreements to be clear—crystal clear—to avoid any argument regarding an ambiguity. For example, in a recent case, a commercial lease was deemed ambiguous regarding the tenant’s lease rate. As a result, the landlord could not ram its commercial eviction claim through the court due to what it claimed to be the tenant not paying the right lease rate. Instead, evidence needed...

24 December

0 Comments

Sticky

Recoverability of Expert Witness Fees in Federal Court

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

Many litigants are unaware that testifying expert costs are not automatically recoverable in federal court like they are in state court. Expert witness fees / costs are not an automatic taxable costs. 28 U.S.C. s. 1920 discusses taxable costs. 28 U.S.C. s. 1821 discusses a witness’ per diem costs of $40/day for each day’s attendance. See 28 U.S.C. 1821(2)(b) (“A witness shall be paid an attendance fee of $40 per day for each day's attendance. A witness shall also be paid the attendance fee for the time necessarily occupied in going to and returning from the place of attendance at the...

12 December

0 Comments

Sticky

(Extract on) Business Judgment Rule

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

Directors that serve on a board owe a fiduciary duty to their company and members. Directors are generally protected from personal liability for decisions they make by what is known as the business judgment rule. See Fla. Stat. s. 607.0830 (“(5) A director is not liable for any action taken as a director, or any failure to take any action, if he or she performed the duties of his or her office in compliance with this section.”); see also Florida Statute s. 617.0834 (regarding directors that serve on a nonprofit board). These are very important statutes (607.0830 and 617.0834) for...

25 November

0 Comments

Sticky

Trial Court’s Responsibility is NOT to Rewrite a Contract

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal

Many business disputes involve the interpretation and the application of a contract. This is because business transactions typically involve a contractual relationship governing the rights, liabilities, risks, and recourse relating to the transaction. When there is a dispute regarding the transaction, this gives rise to a breach of contract claim. It is important to understand that a trial court’s responsibility is NOT to rewrite the terms of a contract so that the risks are allocated differently. As explained: [C]ourts are ‘powerless to rewrite [a] contract to make it more reasonable or advantageous to one of the parties…or to substitute [their] judgments for...

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....

26 October

0 Comments

Sticky

Prejudgment Interest and Post-judgment Interest

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

Prejudgment interest is routinely a component of a claimant’s monetary damages. The claimant wants prejudgment interest on the principal amount due and owing. If no interest rate is set forth in the claimant’s contract, then the interest will accrue at the statutory rate. Then, once a judgment is entered, post-judgment interest will accrue on the judgment until it is paid. See Florida Statute s. 55.03. Florida’s statutory interest rate is set by the Chief Financial Officer and published here. For instance, the current statutory interest rate is 4.75% per annum (and it has been 4.75% for numerous years). This translates to a...

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...

06 October

0 Comments

Sticky

The Simple, All-or-Nothing Verdict Form

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

Attention should be given to the verdict form you want the jury to fill out after listening to and seeing the evidence presented in the case. This verdict form dictates how the jury decides the facts in your case in the context of the theme of your case and the jury instructions. Needless to say, the verdict form is very, very important! There are times when a party may want a simple, all-or-nothing verdict form. A party may like this (such as the plaintiff) versus a special interrogatory form that contains numerous potentially confusing questions the jury is asked to answer. For...

01 October

0 Comments

Sticky

Business Records Exception (to Hearsay Rule) When Business Takes Custody of Another’s Records

Posted by David Adelstein

in Evidence

If you have looked through the articles on this blog before, you will know that the business records exception to the hearsay rule is a very important hearsay exception in business disputes (or any dispute involving business records!). The business records exception requires a proper foundation to be laid by a witness before the records are admitted into evidence to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the records. The proper foundation requires the witness to show that "(1) the record was made at or near the time of the event; (2) was made by or from information transmitted by a...