24 January

Sticky

Proving Defense of Unilateral Mistake

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...

17 December

0 Comments

Sticky

Quick Note: Order Denying Attorney’s Fees Reviewed De Novo

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal

An order denying a motion for attorney's fees is generally reviewed under a de novo standard of appellate review. In a recent case I wrote about dealing with a coverage dispute between an insured and a property insurer, both the insured and insurer moved for attorney's fees after the jury's verdict. In this case, the insured moved for attorney's fees pursuant to statute -- Florida Statute s. 627.428. The trial court denied the insured's motion. The insurer moved for attorney's fees pursuant to a proposal for settlement / offer of judgment it served under Florida Statute s. 768.79. The trial...

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...

24 November

0 Comments

Sticky

Proving ALL of the Elements of a Fraudulent or Negligent Misrepresentation Claim

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

Fraud claims are hard to prove. Any fraud claim or claim predicated on a misrepresentation is an intentional tort; therefore, it requires proof that the defendant had the intent to induce the plaintiff to act on a misrepresentation and the plaintiff actually relied on and acted on the misrepresentation. While fraud-type claims are perhaps commonly pled, pleading a fraud-type claim and proving a fraud-type claim are two different things. A party can plead a fraud-type claim to get passed a motion to dismiss. Proving the fraud-type claim, however, is a different story. Plaintiffs need to understand the elements they are...

14 November

0 Comments

Sticky

Is the “Bad” Appellate Case Binding or Persuasive?

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal, Trial Perspectives

There are times I hear that because the “bad” appellate case is in another appellate district compared to the appellate district where my case is located, that “bad” case is not binding. This sentiment is not necessarily true, particularly if there are no interdistrict conflicting opinions relating to the “bad” appellate case (and, more appropriately, the legal issue that “bad” case deals with). This was explained by the Florida Supreme Court in Pardo v. State, 596 So.2d 665, 666-67 (Fla.1992): This Court has stated that “[t]he decisions of the district courts of appeal represent the law of Florida unless and until they...

08 November

0 Comments

Sticky

Proving Fraud on the Court with Clear and Convincing Evidence

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

When a party files a motion that the opposing party perpetuated a fraud on the court, they are looking for the court to sanction the opposing party, with the harsh remedy of striking the opposing party’s pleadings. Fraud on the court is described as: The requisite fraud on the court occurs where it can be demonstrated, clearly and convincingly, that a party has sentiently set in motion some unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial system’s ability impartially to adjudicate a matter by improperly influencing the trier of fact or unfairly hampering the presentation of the opposing party’s claim or...

04 November

0 Comments

Sticky

Striking / Excusing a Prospective Juror for Bias during Voir Dire

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal, Burden of Proof, Standard of Review, Trial Perspectives

An attorney’s opportunity to question prospective jurors (the jury venire) is an important part of the trial process. This is known as voir dire. Attorneys want to ask tailored questions to determine those persons in the venire that should be stricken for cause, those for which they should exercise a peremptory challenge, and those, quite frankly, they want to sit on the jury panel. There is strategy involved including wanting to develop a rapport with jurors. These are the potential folks that will render a verdict in the case and analyze the factual evidence based on the law (jury instructions)....