Case Name: BATH FITTER FRANCHISING, INC., Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. Fernand LABELLE, Appellee/Cross-Appellant
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2015-02-04
Citations: 156 So. 3d 588
Docket Number: No. 3D14-2053
Parties: BATH FITTER FRANCHISING, INC., Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. Fernand LABELLE, Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
Judges: Before SALTER, EMAS and FERNANDEZ, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 156
Pages: 588–589

Head Matter:
BATH FITTER FRANCHISING, INC., Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. Fernand LABELLE, Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
No. 3D14-2053.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Feb. 4, 2015.
Rehearing Denied March 3, 2015.
Isicoff, Ragatz & Koenigsberg, and Eric D. Isicoff and Carolina A. Latour and Teresa Ragatz, for appellant/cross-appel-lee.
Chepenik Trushin and Daniel F. Bach-man, for appellee/cross-appellant.
Before SALTER, EMAS and FERNANDEZ, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Bath Fitter Franchising, Inc., a franchisor and independent operator specializing in the manufacture, sale, and installation of bathroom products, appeals a non-final order denying its emergency motion for a preliminary injunction against Fernand Labelle, formerly the owner of a minority interest in a Bath Fitter franchisee. La-belle cross-appeals the trial court's eviden-tiary ruling that a surreptitiously-recorded telephone conversation was inadmissible.
In the appeal, we find no error in the trial court's determination that the substantive law of Vermont was controlling, Mazzoni Farms, Inc. v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., 761 So.2d 306, 311 (Fla.2000), as specified in the franchise agreement. We also conclude that the trial court correctly applied the substantive law of Vermont in denying the motion for an injunction on multiple grounds. Roy's Orthopedic, Inc. v. Lavigne, 487 A.2d 173 (Vt.1985).
In the cross-appeal, we find no abuse of discretion and affirm the trial court's exclusion of the surreptitiously-recorded telephone conversation. One of the parties was in Florida and unaware that the conversation was being recorded in Utah. We venture no opinion regarding the result if the recorded telephone conversation was offered in a court in Utah (which has a different statute requiring only one party's consent). In a Florida proceeding such as this, however, the recording and "evidence derived therefrom" are inadmissible (with limited exceptions inapplicable to this record). § 934.06, Fla. Stat. (2014).
Affirmed as to both the appeal and cross-appeal.