Evidentiary Hearing when Lis Pendens NOT based on Duly Recorded Instrument

A lis pendens serves as a cloud against real property. A lis pendens will be recorded by a plaintiff when there is a dispute concerning affected real property. A party may record a lis pendens if it is foreclosing on a mortgage or lien or if the lawsuit simply pertains to the real property. If a lawsuit is NOT based on a duly recorded instrument such as a mortgage or a lien, a defendant should move to discharge the lis pendens and/or require the plaintiff to post a lis pendens bond to cover the defendant’s damages if the lis pendens...

18 August

0 Comments

Sticky

Standard for Petition for Writ of Certiorari

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal

To invoke an appellate court's certiorari jurisdiction, [t]he petitioning party must demonstrate that the contested order constitutes (1) a departure from the essential requirements of the law, (2) resulting in material injury for the remainder of the case[,] (3) that cannot be corrected on post-judgment appeal. State Farm Florida Ins. Co. v. Sanders, 44 Fla.L.Weekly D1901a (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) quoting Rousso v. Hannon, 146 So.3d 66, 69 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (internal quotations omitted). This is the standard for a petition for writ of certiorari. An example of an appellate court granting a petition for writ of certiorari and quashing a trial court’s...

07 April

0 Comments

Sticky

Designating a Representative(s) to Serve as the Corporate Representative for Deposition

Posted by David Adelstein

in Standard of Review, Trial Perspectives

Corporate representative depositions play an important role in the discovery of any dispute involving a corporate party. A corporate representative deposition requires the corporate representative to speak on behalf of the company – they are not speaking based on their personal knowledge, but as to the company’s position regarding designated topics. In fact, the designated corporate representative does not have to have the most knowledge about a particular topic to be the representative. See Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.310(b)(6). See also Sybac Solar, GMBH v. 6th Street Solar Energy park of Gainesville, LLC, 42 Fla. L. Weekly D771a (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (“The...

31 March

0 Comments

Sticky

Punitive Damages for Business Torts

Posted by David Adelstein

in Standard of Review, Trial Perspectives

Punitive damages can be warranted in business torts, although you are dealing with a much tougher threshold. Typically, the misconduct warranting the punitive damages needs to be intentional, i.e., the defendant had knowledge of the wrongfulness of the conduct and its high probability of damage and engaged in the misconduct anyway. See Fla. Stat. 768.72. This is because “‘the purpose of punitive damages is not to further compensate the plaintiff, but to punish the defendant for the wrongful conduct and to deter similar misconduct by it and other actors in the future.'” See Bistline v. Rogers, 42 Fla. L. Weekly...

25 December

0 Comments

Sticky

The Burden to Establish Petitions for Writs of Certiorari (“Cert”)

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal, Standard of Review

What is a petition for a writ of certiorari (or “cert,” for short)? A petition for a writ of cert is when a petitioner wants to appeal a non-final order (e.g., an interlocutory order that does not finally dispose of the dispute such as a final adverse judgment against the petitioner) issued by the trial court when there is no direct right to appeal that non-final order. In order for an appellate court to entertain a petition for a writ of cert, the petitioner MUST establish that (a) the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law and (b) this...