Court Opinion

ID: 9917443
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-12 15:03:11.817605+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:03:08.998193
License: Public Domain

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
                STATE OF FLORIDA
                  _____________________________

                       Case No. 5D22-1867
                  LT Case No. 2020-10896-CIDL
                  _____________________________

JOHN KNOX VILLAGE OF CENTRAL
FLORIDA, INC., and LESLY
MOMPOINT, as to MAJESTIC OAKS,

    Appellants,

    v.

ESTATE OF ALMA JANE LAWRENCE,
by and through MARIAN K.
CASTLEMAN, PERSONAL
REPRESENTATIVE,
    Appellee.
                  _____________________________

Nonfinal appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County.
Kathryn D. Weston, Judge.

Therese A. Savona and Scott A. Cole, of Cole, Scott & Kissane,
P.A., Orlando, for Appellants.

Joanna Greber Dettloff, Rainey C. Booth, Jr., and A. Lance Reins,
of Mendes, Reins & Wilander, PLLC, Tampa, for Appellee.

                        January 12, 2024

KILBANE, J.

   John Knox Village of Central Florida, Inc., and Lesly
Mompoint, as to Majestic Oaks (collectively “Appellants”), appeal
an order granting leave to amend to add a claim for punitive
damages pursuant to section 400.0237, Florida Statutes (2021),
entered in favor of the Estate of Alma Jane Lawrence (“Appellee”).
The trial court granted Appellee’s motion after “having reviewed
the proffered evidence, heard argument from the parties, and
being otherwise fully advised in the premises.” The court made no
affirmative findings in its order or orally at the hearing.

    Appellants argue that (1) the trial court erred in granting
leave because its order failed to make affirmative findings; and (2)
the proffered evidence did not support a claim for punitive
damages. Appellee argues, inter alia, that affirmative findings are
not required or the lack of affirmative findings constitutes
harmless error in light of the change to Florida Rule of Appellate
Procedure 9.130. We affirm and write to address the jurisprudence
requiring affirmative findings and how Florida Rule of Appellate
Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(G) impacts our review.

     Pleading Requirements for Punitive Damages Claims

     There are two operative statutes that embrace the topic of
pleading a claim for punitive damages relevant to this appeal.
Section 768.72 applies to “any civil action.” § 768.72(1), Fla. Stat.
It states in relevant part:

    (1) In any civil action, no claim for punitive damages shall
    be permitted unless there is a reasonable showing by
    evidence in the record or proffered by the claimant which
    would provide a reasonable basis for recovery of such
    damages.

§ 768.72(1), Fla. Stat.

     Chapter 400 covers nursing homes and related health care
facilities. See Ch. 400, Fla. Stat. A punitive damages claim
brought under this chapter is subject to the requirements of
section 400.0237. It states in relevant part:

    (1) A claim for punitive damages may not be brought
    under this part unless there is a showing by admissible
    evidence that has been submitted by the parties that

                                 2
    provides a reasonable basis for recovery of such damages
    when the criteria in this section are applied.

§ 400.0237(1), Fla. Stat. The punitive damages claim in the
instant case was brought pursuant to section 400.0237. See Life
Care Ctrs. of Am., Inc. v. Croft, 299 So. 3d 588, 590 (Fla. 2d DCA
2020) (explaining that case law discussing section 768.72 is
significant and applicable, but section 400.0237 has different
procedural requirements).

                Affirmative Findings Requirement

     Under certiorari review, this Court found that “the trial court,
serving as a gatekeeper, is required to make an affirmative finding
that plaintiff has made a ‘reasonable showing by evidence,’ which
would provide a ‘reasonable evidentiary basis for recovering
[punitive] damages’ if the motion to amend is granted.” Varnedore
v. Copeland, 210 So. 3d 741, 747–48 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017); see also
E. Bay NC, LLC v. Reddish, 306 So. 3d 1225, 1227 (Fla. 2d DCA
2020) (requiring the trial court to make an affirmative finding for
punitive damages claims brought pursuant to section 400.0237).
“[T]he trial court’s failure to include any such finding, either orally
or in the written order, constitute[d] a departure from the essential
requirements of the law,” would cause irreparable harm, and
therefore results in reversal. Kovacs v. Williams, 331 So. 3d 850,
852 (Fla. 5th DCA 2021).

     Upon revisiting the affirmative findings requirement, Kovacs
yielded to Varnedore; however, it challenged the requirement and
certified conflict with Watt v. Lo, 302 So. 3d 1021, 1023 (Fla. 1st
DCA 2020). We agree with Kovacs that “there is no operative
statute or rule requiring the trial court to make an affirmative
finding” and if “writing on a blank slate” would determine that no
such requirement exists.1 See 331 So. 3d at 851. Had the

    1  The affirmative findings requirement may have fulfilled a
felt need for courts constrained by their limited review, but that
need is not reflected in the statutory text. See Ham v. Portfolio
Recovery Assocs., LLC, 308 So. 3d 942, 946 (Fla. 2020) (“[W]e follow
the ‘supremacy-of-text principle’—namely, the principle that ‘[t]he
words of a governing text are of paramount concern, and what they
convey, in their context, is what the text means.’” (quoting Antonin

                                  3
Legislature intended to require courts to make affirmative
findings, it could have easily done so. See Brooks v. State, 363 So.
3d 181, 185 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023) (“[W]hen a legislative body ‘knows
how to say something but chooses not to, its silence is controlling.’”
(quoting In re Guillen, 972 F.3d 1221, 1226 (11th Cir. 2020))); see
also § 61.08(1)(b)–(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (requiring trial courts to “make
written findings of fact” and “a specific, factual determination”).
Notwithstanding our agreement with Kovacs, we too must yield to
Varnedore because the operative statutes on which it is rooted
remain unaltered. See § 400.0237, Fla. Stat.; § 768.72, Fla. Stat.
Thus, we are bound to apply Varnedore to the extent that it
requires trial courts to make affirmative findings as to whether a
party may assert a claim for punitive damages.

      Change to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130

      “Previously, certiorari review was the sole avenue for
determining whether the procedural requirements of the statute
governing the pleading of punitive damages claims had been
followed.” Cleveland Clinic Fla. Health Sys. Nonprofit Corp. v.
Oriolo, 357 So. 3d 703, 705 n.1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023). This review
was “limited to addressing whether the trial court complied with
all applicable requirements and analysis . . . in granting leave to
assert a punitive damages claim.” Keen v. Jennings, 327 So. 3d
435, 438 (Fla. 5th DCA 2021). As such, “[c]ertiorari [was] not
available to review a determination that there [was] a reasonable
showing by evidence in the record or proffered by the claimant
which would provide a reasonable basis for recovery of [punitive]
damages” and could “not be granted ‘to review the sufficiency of
the evidence considered by a trial judge.’” Croft, 299 So. 3d at 590
(first alteration in original) (quoting Globe Newspaper Co. v. King,
658 So. 2d 518, 519–20 (Fla. 1995)). However, the certiorari
standard no longer constrains this Court’s review.

    In 2022, the Florida Supreme Court amended Florida Rule of
Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3) to allow for nonfinal appeals of
orders granting or denying a motion for leave to amend to assert a

Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of
Legal Texts 56 (2012))); Scalia & Garner, Reading Law at 95
(discussing judicial “gap-filling”).

                                  4
claim for punitive damages. In re Amend. to Fla. Rule App. Proc.
9.130, 345 So. 3d 725 (Fla. 2022); Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(G).
The amendment became effective on April 1, 2022. In re Amend.
to Fla. Rule App. Proc. 9.130, 345 So. 3d at 726. Because the order
under review was rendered and the notice of appeal filed after
April 1, 2022, this Court’s review is unquestionably pursuant to
Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(G) as a nonfinal
order. See Fed. Express Corp. v. Sabbah, 357 So. 3d 1283 (Fla. 3d
DCA 2023) (discussing effective date of rule 9.130(a)(3)(G) and its
application to pending cases).

      Under rule 9.130(a)(3)(G), an appellate court reviews the trial
court’s ruling on a motion for leave to amend a complaint to assert
a claim for punitive damages de novo. See Hosp. Specialists, P.A.
v. Deen, 48 Fla. L. Weekly D2214 (Fla. 5th DCA Nov. 21, 2023)
(citing Werner Enters., Inc. v. Mendez, 362 So. 3d 278, 281 (Fla. 5th
DCA 2023)). Section 400.0237 requires “a showing by admissible
evidence.” § 400.0237(1), Fla. Stat.; see also Croft, 299 So. 3d at
590. The record evidence or proffer to support a punitive damages
claim must be timely served on all parties at least twenty days
before the hearing. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.190(f). Because rule
9.130(a)(3)(G) removes the restrictions of certiorari review, “a trial
court is in no better position than an appellate court to determine
[the record evidence’s or proffer’s] sufficiency because the trial
court is not called upon to evaluate and weigh testimony and
evidence based upon its observation of the bearing, demeanor, and
credibility of witnesses.” See Est. of Despain v. Avante Grp., Inc.,
900 So. 2d 637, 644 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (citing Murray v. State,
692 So. 2d 157, 164 (Fla. 1997)).

                              Conclusion

     Upon our de novo review of the evidence in this case,2 we find
that the record supports the trial court’s order. Accordingly, the
trial court’s failure to make affirmative findings, as Varnadore

    2  “In conducting our de novo review, we consider the record
evidence and the proffered evidence in the light most favorable to
the plaintiff.” Deen, 48 Fla. L. Weekly at D2214 (citing Est. of
Blakely by and through Wilson v. Stetson Univ., Inc., 355 So. 3d
476, 481 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022)).

                                  5
requires, was harmless. See Ruiz v. Wendy’s Trucking, LLC, 357
So. 3d 292, 300 n.4 (Fla. 2d DCA 2023) (“The trial court ‘reached a
supportable result based on proof in the record,’ and thus
remanding for express findings ‘would serve no positive purpose. .
. .’” (quoting Delivorias v. Delivorias, 80 So. 3d 352, 354 (Fla. 1st
DCA 2011))); see also Omega Title Naples, LLC v. Butschky, 327
So. 3d 424, 426 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021).3

    AFFIRMED.

SOUD, J., concurs.
LAMBERT, J., concurs in result.

                  _____________________________

    Not final until disposition of any timely and
    authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
    9.331.
               _____________________________

    3  We note that the Fourth District Court recently agreed with
Varnedore and its affirmative findings requirement. See Fed. Ins.
Co. v. Perlmutter, 48 Fla. L. Weekly D2320 (Fla. 4th DCA Dec. 13,
2023) (en banc). Although we recognize and agree that best
practices are for trial courts “to identify on the record (preferably
in writing) the evidence presented by the movant that satisfied the
evidentiary showing,” see id., appellate courts will not always be
significantly hampered in their review without such finding.
Furthermore, we express no opinion on the Fourth District Court’s
interpretation of section 768.72 as it has no bearing here.

                                  6