24 July

Sticky

Unclean Hands Affirmative Defense

In Florida, and many jurisdictions, there is an equitable affirmative defense known as unclean hands. Most of the time, it is pled as an affirmative defense incorrectly. It is asserted, but not really a defense a party can ever prove. It is a hard defense to prevail on because it is akin to fraud: Unclean hands is an equitable defense much like fraud. The defense applies to bar an equitable claim no matter the claim's merits when “the plaintiff has engaged in some manner of unscrupulous conduct, overreaching, or trickery that would be ‘condemned by honest and reasonable men.' ” U.S. Bank...

27 February

0 Comments

Sticky

Business Judgment Rule Designed to Shield Directors from Personal Liability

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

A recent case out of Florida’s Third District discussed the business judgment rule and ultra vires acts. Of importance, the Third District held that the business judgment rule was not required to be raised as an affirmative defense. Hence, the business judgment rule could be relied on notwithstanding a board/manager/director not raising it as an affirmative defense in a lawsuit asserted against them. The business judgment rule is a critical rule for anyone serving on a board to appreciate because it is designed to benefit them, i.e., to shield them for personal liability for their decisions. Without such a rule, who...

23 May

0 Comments

Sticky

Accurate Jury Instructions are Important

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal, Jury Instructions

Accurate jury instructions that are read to a jury are important. This is because accurate jury instructions help a jury properly resolve issues important to the case. “A decision to give or withhold a jury instruction is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.” Vainberg v. Avatar Property & Casualty Ins. Co., 46 Fla. L.Weekly D1141d (Fla. 4th DCA 2021). In Vainberg, the trial judge refused to give a jury instruction requested by the plaintiff. The case involved a property insurance dispute where the insurer, pursuant to the terms of the property insurance policy, elected to perform the repairs. After the insurer’s contractor...

10 May

0 Comments

Sticky

Appeal of Discovery Order — Not so Easy!

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal, Discovery

In litigation, there will be disputes as to the scope and perceived relevance of discovery (e.g., scope of document production, depositions, and interrogatory answers). It may not occur in every case, but it will occur. There is no such thing as discovery orders always going in your favor. Not possible. Some discovery orders entered against you are understandable. Others lead to a certain amount of frustration. And, others leave you with consternation such that you feel that you need to appeal based on the perceived prejudice. The appeal of a discovery order, however, is through a petition for writ of...

24 January

0 Comments

Sticky

Proving Defense of Unilateral Mistake

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

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...

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...

13 January

0 Comments

Sticky

Do I or Do I Not File a Reply to Affirmative Defenses?

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

I’ll be the first to tell you that I seldom file a reply to affirmative defenses unless I am truly looking to avoid an affirmative defense – I have a defense to the defense. When I do file a reply, it is typically specific and catered to a specific defense (again, a specific defense to a specific affirmative defense). This is an important consideration and not filing a reply and specifically avoiding a defense (when you have a defense to the defense) can be problematic as an insured recently found out in an insurance coverage dispute. Thus, if you have an...

16 July

0 Comments

Sticky

Illegality of Contract as Affirmative Defense

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

There is an affirmative defense known as “illegality of contract.” Under this defense, the defendant is claiming that performance under its contract became illegal to perform; thus, the defendant should be excused from further performance. Just like any affirmative defense, the burden is on the defendant to prove the illegality of contract. See Novak v. Gray, 469 Fed. Appx. 811, 813-14 (11th Cir. 2012) (defendant has burden of proving defense of illegality of contract). An example of the application of this defense can be found in the dispute between a commercial landlord and its tenant in Lucas Games, Inc. v. Morris...

20 February

0 Comments

Sticky

The Nonparty Fabre Defendant

Posted by David Adelstein

in Burden of Proof, Trial Perspectives

I want to discuss the concept of a “Fabre defendant.” This is an important concept in negligence cases, particularly personal injury and property damage cases. “A ‘Fabre defendant’ is a nonparty defendant whom a party defendant asserts is wholly of partially responsible for the negligence alleged [by the plaintiff].” Salazar v. Helicopter Structural & Maintenance, Inc., 986 So.2d 620, n.1 (Fla.2d DCA 2007). As further explained in Florida Statute s. 768.81(3): (3) Apportionment of damages.--In a negligence action, the court shall enter judgment against each party liable on the basis of such party's percentage of fault and not on the basis of the...

25 December

0 Comments

Sticky

How the Defense of Set-Off Applies

Posted by David Adelstein

in Evidence

Set-off is a popular topic or defense raised in civil disputes. In contract actions, set-off must be raised as an affirmative defense and proven at trial (and determined by the trier of fact) or else the defendant waives the right to assert set-off. See Felgenhauer v. Bonds, 891 So.2d 1043, 1045 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). What about tort actions such as negligence actions in disputes involving personal injury or property damage? For instance, say a plaintiff sues three defendants in negligence for the same damage. Prior to trial, the plaintiff settled with two of the defendants for a total of $100,000 and...