Source: http://provemyfloridacase.com/category/appeal/page/2/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 09:03:04+00:00

Document:
Appeal Archives - Page 2 of 6 - В сложной финансовой ситуации приходит на помощь кредит наличными в Казахстане.
I recently wrote an article how there are times when a party is seeking reimbursement for solely economic losses, their best recourse is an equitable subrogation claim. The article also discusses the application of equitable subrogation dealing with an actual fact pattern.
Equitable subrogation, you say? In an equitable subrogation claim, a party pays for damages (or a debt) it believes were caused by another party. The party then pursues reimbursement against the party it believes primarily responsible for the damages or debt. No one wants to pay for damages or a debt it believes were caused by a third party!
Subrogation would not work any injustice, i.e., it would not be unfair.
Tank Tech, Inc. v. Valley Tank Testing, L.L.C., 43 Fla.L.Weekly D868a (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) quoting Dade Cty. Sch. Bd. v. Radio Station WQBA, 731 So.2d 638, 646 (Fla. 1999).
Notably, in Tank Tech, Inc., the trial court granted summary judgment against the party pursing equitable subrogation. Summary judgment was granted in favor of the defendant. The appellate court reversed for the factual reasons discussed in the article.
As you may know from reading this blog, a motion for summary judgment is reviewed on appeal under a de novo standard of appellate review. Summary judgment is only proper if there are no genuine issues of material fact and the party moving for summary judgment is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
“Where the defendant is the party moving for summary judgment, as here, ‘neither the trial court nor this court determines whether the plaintiff can prove [its] case; our function solely is to determine whether the pleadings, depositions, and affidavits conclusively show that the plaintiff cannot prove [its] case.’” Tank Tech, Inc., supra, quoting Crandall v. S.W. Fla. Blood Bank, Inc., 581 So.2d 593, 595 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). The takeaway is that a plaintiff is NOT required to prove its entire case when responding to a defendant’s motion for summary judgment and the court’s job is not to determine whether the plaintiff can prove its case at trial. Rather, the job is to determine whether the the undisputed material facts “conclusively show that the plaintiff cannot prove its case.” Id.
If you have a dispute, one of the first considerations should be “where do I sue?” If the dispute may arise out of or relate to a contract, you want to look at your contract. Many contracts contain forum selection or venue provisions identifying the exclusive venue governing your dispute.
For instance, the provision may say something to the effect, “The exclusive venue for any dispute arising out of or relating to this contract shall be in Miami-Dade County Florida.” This means that if you plan to sue you need to do so in a court located in Miami-Dade County, Florida, even if you have an argument that the venue should be in a different, more preferred location. Venue and forum selection provisions are important provisions because they contemplate where a lawsuit must be brought in the event such a lawsuit occurs down the road. While of course you hope for the best with any agreement, you know that disputes occur, so you plan for the potentiality of that risk.
As a contracting party, you have the right to contractually agree to a forum selection / venue provision; you can contractually agree to the forum governing your dispute. Baker v. Economic Research Services, Inc. 43 Fla.L.Weekly D643a (Fla. 1st DCA 2017). Absent limited exceptions, these provisions will be deemed enforceable. Id. A judicial order as to venue is also the type of non-final order that can be appealed immediately. Id. Thus, even if you sued in a venue contrary to the forum selection provision in your contract and the trial court agreed with you, the other side can appeal this order immediately arguing that the forum selection provision places venue in a different location.
In Baker, employees entered an employment agreement that contained a forum selection provision that placed venue in Delaware. The employees left to work for a competitor and the employer sued its former employees in Leon County, Florida. An argument the employees raised was that the lawsuit should have been filed in Delaware, not Florida, based on the forum selection provision. The trial court denied the motion. But, remember, an order as to venue can be appealed immediately so the employees appealed. The appellate court reversed the trial court finding that claims arising out of or relating to the agreements need to be filed in Delaware based on the forum selection provision. The forum selection provision survives any termination of the agreements such that if the employer’s claims have a significant relationship (nexus) to the agreement, then the claims must be brought in Delaware.
As you can see, forum selection provisions are important because they will largely dictate where a party must sue or be sued. Take such provisions into consideration when entering an agreement.
For more information on forum selection / venue provisions, you can also check out this article.
Analogous to a motion for directed verdict in a jury trial, in a nonjury bench trial decided by a judge, a defendant can move for an involuntary dismissal after the plaintiff (party introducing evidence in favor of affirmative relief) puts on his/her case. This is a common motion after the plaintiff in a bench trial puts on his/her case. No different than moving for a directed verdict in a jury trial, it is a motion that carries a high burden since every doubt and inference is given in favor of the plaintiff.
Involuntary Dismissal. Any party may move for dismissal of an action or of any claim against that party for failure of an adverse party to comply with these rules or any order of court. Notice of hearing on the motion shall be served as required under rule 1.090(d). After a party seeking affirmative relief in an action tried by the court without a jury has completed the presentation of evidence, any other party may move for a dismissal on the ground that on the facts and the law the party seeking affirmative relief has shown no right to relief, without waiving the right to offer evidence if the motion is not granted. The court as trier of the facts may then determine them and render judgment against the party seeking affirmative relief or may decline to render judgment until the close of all the evidence. Unless the court in its order for dismissal otherwise specifies, a dismissal under this subdivision and any dismissal not provided for in this rule, other than a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction or for improper venue or for lack of an indispensable party, operates as an adjudication on the merits.
In a bench trial, motions for involuntary dismissal are appropriate if the plaintiff fails to establish a prima facie case, i.e., the plaintiff fails to introduce evidence that establish the elements of his/her claim(s) against the defendant. Boca Golf View, Ltd. v. Hughes Hall, Inc., 843 So.2d 992, 993 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). “To rule on the motion for involuntary dismissal, the trial court was required to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, resolving every conflict and inference in its favor.” Id. See also Nationstar Mortgage, LLC v. Silva, 43 Fla.L.Weekly D548a (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (“A motion for involuntary dismissal should only be granted ‘when there is no reasonable evidence upon which a [fact finder] could legally predicate a verdict in favor of the non-moving party.’” (quoting Tylinski v. Klein Auto., Inc., 90 So.3d 870, 873 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)).
[T]he movant [party moving for involuntary dismissal] admits the truth of all facts in evidence an every reasonable conclusion or inference based thereon favorable to the non-moving party [e.g., plaintiff]. Where the plaintiff has presented a prima facia case and different conclusions or inferences can be drawn from the evidence, the trial judge should not grant a motion for involuntary dismissal.
Id. quoting Day v. Amini, 550 So.2d 169, 171 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).
Importantly for appellate purposes, if a plaintiff is appealing a trial court’s granting of a motion for involuntary dismissal in a bench trial, it is reviewed under a de novo standard of appellate review. Green Tree Servicing LLC v. Sanker, 204 So.3d 496, 497 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016).
I recently talked about the burden of proof when it comes to an all-risk property insurance policy. This article is important for insureds that have a property insurance claim and are dealing with certain insurance coverage issues with their property insurer. The case at-issue discussed in the article dealt with an appeal of the jury instructions that were read to the jury. Specifically, the issue was whether the trial court applied the right burden of proof in the jury instructions. This issue is reviewed under a de novo standard of appellate review. See Jones v. Federated National Ins. Co., 43 Fla. L. Weekly D164a (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) citing Daniels v. State, 121 So.3d 409, 413 (Fla. 2013).
The appellate court found the the trial court’s jury instructions were erroneous meaning the case was remanded back to the trial court for a new trial (with correct jury instructions regarding the burden of proof).
It is important to note that at the charging conference between counsel and the judge to discuss the jury instructions that will be read to the jury, the insured’s lawyer objected to the jury instructions that the judge was going to read to the jury. This charging conference is important and, as the insured’s lawyer did in this case, it is crucial to object to any jury instruction that is incorrect and/or applies the wrong burden of proof.
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 parties or even practitioners that receive an order with no reasoning. It certainly does not bring me any comfort.
My guess is the transcribed summary judgment hearing was important and it underscores the importance of having a court reporter at a hearing for this purpose. If the trial court does not provide its reasoning in an order, it is not always clear what the reasoning is that led to the ruling. Having a court reporter at the hearing allows the appellate court to review the arguments raised at the hearing including any pronouncements by the trial court at the hearing.
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 court denied the insurer’s motion too. Both orders were appealed and reviewed by the appellate court under a de novo standard of appellate review.
Appeal, Trial Perspectives / Comments Off on Is the “Bad” Appellate Case Binding or Persuasive?
The District Courts of Appeal are required to follow Supreme Court decisions. As an adjunct to this rule it is logical and necessary in order to preserve stability and predictability in the law that, likewise, trial courts be required to follow the holdings of higher courts—District Courts of Appeal. The proper hierarchy of decisional holdings would demand that in the event the only case on point on a district level is from a district other than the one in which the trial court is located, the trial court be required to follow that decision. Alternatively, if the district court of the district in which the trial court is located has decided the issue, the trial court is bound to follow it. Contrarily, as between District Courts of Appeal, a sister district’s opinion is merely persuasive.
333 So.2d 51, 53 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976).
In other words, and further noted by the Florida Supreme Court, “Absent an opinion from this Court, all trial courts in this State would be bound by the opinion of the First District [or any appellate district] until there is a contrary decision from the appellate court in their own district.” Charles v. Southern Baptist Hospital of Florida, Inc., 209 So.3d 1199, n.2 (Fla. 2017).
Also, federal district and circuit court cases (absent the United States Supreme Court) are not binding precedent on trial courts. Rather, they are persuasive authority. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Edge Family Chiropractic, P.A., 41 So.3d 293, 297 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (“First, the [federal] cases are not binding precedent; they are, at most, persuasive authority.”); Roland v. Fla. East Coast Ry., LLC, 873 So.2d 1271, n.5 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (“This court is bound by decisions of the United States Supreme Court and the Florida Supreme Court. Decisions of the federal courts of appeals are persuasive but not binding.”) (internal citation omitted).
In an earlier posting, I discussed the difference between a motion for rehearing and motion for reconsideration.
From that posting, you know that a motion for rehearing is a post-trial motion and, in particular, a motion that applies post-judgment. A properly filed motion for rehearing will toll the time to file an appeal.
There are times where a party after a judgment is entered will file a motion for rehearing. Then, before that motion is ruled on, will file a notice of appeal. Why? The party is not appealing the order on the motion for rehearing because such an order has not been issued. Thus, the party is filing a notice of appeal of the judgment – yes, the same judgment that prompted the motion for rehearing.
Previously, the law stated that the party abandoned its post-trial motion for rehearing. “[B]y filing a notice of appeal prior to obtaining a ruling on the motion for rehearing, Appellant abandoned its motion.” Dep’t of Revenue v. Vanamburg, 174 So.3d 640, 642 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (“Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.020(i)(3) provided that if a motion for hearing or a motion to alter or amend, among other post-judgment motions, is filed ‘and a notice of appeal is filed before the filing of a signed, written order disposing of all such motions, all motions filed by the appealing party that are pending at the time shall be deemed abandoned, and the final order shall be deemed rendered by the filing of the notice of appeal.’”). See also Kee v. Bailey, 634 So.2d 654 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (“The Florida Supreme Court has clearly stated that a party abandons previously filed post-judgment motions when he files a notice of appeal of that judgment.”).
If such a motion or motions have been filed and a notice of appeal is filed before the filing of a signed, written order disposing of all such motions, the appeal shall be held in abeyance until the filing of a signed, written order disposing of the last such motion.
And, what if the party filed a motion for rehearing, but then withdrew the motion for rehearing and filed a notice of appeal? In this scenario, “the rendition of the final judgment in this circumstance occurs at the time the notice of appeal is filed, not at the earlier time when the final judgment is entered.” Rice v. 1989 Ford Bronco, 609 So.2d 639, 640 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). In other words, when a party abandons its timely filed post-trial motion, the abandonment occurs when the notice of appeal is filed. And, thus, the time to file the notice of appeal is not initiated when the final judgment is entered, but when the post-trial motion is abandoned such as through the filing of the notice of appeal. See Rice, supra, (denying motion to dismiss appeal as untimely due to post-trial motion being abandoned by party filing notice of appeal).
Appeal / Comments Off on Motion for Rehearing or Reconsideration: What is the Difference?
Motions titled rehearing and reconsideration are routinely used interchangeably, as if there is no difference between the name “rehearing” and the name “reconsideration. There is a difference though. A motion for a rehearing is distinct from a motion for reconsideration and this distinction is key. Not understanding the difference between a motion for rehearing and motion for reconsideration can result in an untimely appeal.
Motions for rehearing apply to final judgments. They are filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530 because they “only apply to final judgments and ‘those orders that partake of the character of a final judgment, i.e., orders that complete the judicial labor on a portion of the cause.’” Seigler v. Bell, 148 So.3d 473, 478 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) quoting Francisco v. Victoria Marine Shipping, Inc., 486 So.2d 1386, 1290, n.6 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).
Motions for reconsideration, on the other hand, apply to non-final, interlocutory orders prior to final judgment. Helmich v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 136 So.3d 763, 765 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). These motions are based on the trial court’s “‘inherent authority to reconsider and, if deemed appropriate, alter or retract any of its nonfinal rulings prior to entry of the final judgment or order terminating an action.’” Seigler, 148 So.3d at 478 quoting Silverstrone v. Edell, 721 So.2d 1173, 1175 (Fla. 1998).
Although a motion for rehearing and motion for reconsideration are oftentimes mistitled, a court will treat a mistitled motion for reconsideration as a motion for rehearing and vice-versa. Seigler, 148 So.3d at 479. Mistitling or not understanding the distinction between the two motions can be problematic since “[a] motion for reconsideration does not toll the time to file an appeal from a non-final order.” Agere Systems, Inc. v. All American Crating, Inc., 931 So.2d 244 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). Conversely, a properly filed motion for rehearing will toll the time to file an appeal. Remington v. Remington, 705 So.2d 920, 922 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); But see E-Z Marine Supply, Inc. v. Wachovia Commercial Mortgage, Inc., 875 So.2d 279 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004 (improperly filed motion for rehearing will not toll time to file appeal).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.