49 Fla. L. Weekly D700a ANTHONY J. FANTAUZZI, Appellant, v. JOHN P. FLECK, JR., and JAMES C. DAY, Appellees. 2nd District. Case No. 2D23-1390. April 3, 2024. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Manatee County; Charles Sniffen, Judge. Counsel: Nicole Deese Newlon and Bradley F. Kinni of Johnson, Newlon & DeCort, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant. […]
Articles
Torts — Premises liability — Negligent security — Duty — Commercial lease — Action brought against property owner and entity that managed the property which was leased to an adult entertainment club where plaintiff was shot — Trial court erred by denying defendants’ motion for directed verdict on allegations of breach of duty for failure to provide a reasonably safe premises based on determination that defendants had a non-delegable duty to club’s business invitees — Evidence showed that neither defendant had sufficient control over the premises to establish a duty of care where defendants had no control over general operation of club’s business practices and were not involved with security — While lease provision granted property manager the right to enter the premises and operate the club upon the lessee’s failure to continually conduct adult entertainment, defendants were never in a position to exercise that right — Existence of a right to take control of premises in event of default is not the same as actually exercising that control — Defendants’ ability to enter premises to inspect property and make repairs does not constitute sufficient control for purposes of establishing liability where any control defendants retained to enter premises was completely unrelated to injuries plaintiff suffered — Court rejects argument that lease provision requiring tenant to abide by the law should be treated as evidence of a landlord’s control of the premises for purposes of imposing liability
49 Fla. L. Weekly D756b KEITH R.E. JOHNSON and KREJ LEASING, INC., Appellants, v. AKEEFE GARRETT, Appellee. 6th District. Case No. 6D23-1205. L.T. Case No. 2015-001414-CA. April 4, 2024. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County. Chad K. Alvaro and Vincent Falcone, III, Judges. Counsel: Michael M. Brownlee, of The Brownlee Law Firm, P.A., […]
Civil procedure — Relief from judgment — Sanctions — Denial of motions — Judicial error does not provide basis for relief under rule 1.540(b) — Record does not show that trial court abused its discretion by denying motion for sanctions
49 Fla. L. Weekly D755a RUBEN SANTOS CASADO, Appellant, v. JOSEPH R. DOHER, TIMOTHY ST. GORDON AND JOSEPH CORBIN MCGINLEY, Appellees. 5th District. Case No. 5D23-2302. L.T. Case No. 2022-CC-006451-A. April 5, 2024. On appeal from the County Court for Lake County. Carla R. Pepperman, Judge. Counsel: Ruben Santos Casado, Clermont, pro se. Tyler E. […]
Insurance — Homeowners — Coverage — Damages — Setoff — Deductible — Trial court erred by failing to apply hurricane deductible post-verdict to offset jury’s determination of damages where jury was never asked to determine deductible’s applicability — Furthermore, trial court’s response to insurer’s reference to deductible at charge conference tacitly acknowledged that deductible would be applied post verdict — Any suggestion that jury might have taken deductible into consideration in awarding damages is pure speculation
49 Fla. L. Weekly D685a CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, Appellant, v. MARIE AVRIL and CLIFFORD ROMAIN, Appellees. 4th District. Case No. 4D2022-0360. March 27, 2024. Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Sandra Perlman, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE19-009207. Counsel: Kathryn L. Ender of Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, Miami, for […]
Contracts — Franchise agreements — Breach — Counterclaims — Dismissal — Lack of standing — Matters outside four corners of complaint — Trial court erred in dismissing counterclaims based on determination that defendant, the owner of franchisee entity, lacked standing where trial court considered defendant’s deposition testimony to reach its conclusion — While courts may look outside the four corners of the complaint where a motion to dismiss challenges personal jurisdiction, defendant’s alleged lack of standing based on lack of damages was not a jurisdictional concern — Lack of standing was an affirmative defense that could not be determined on a motion to dismiss unless facts supporting it appeared on face of defendant’s pleading — Additionally, trial court erred in dismissing contract-based counterclaims on grounds that defendant was not a contracting party where plaintiff had sued defendant for breach of the very same contracts — Allegations in defendant’s pleadings do not clearly indicate lack of standing to sue under Florida Franchise Act where there is a question as to which party invested in franchise
49 Fla. L. Weekly D668a JEAN FRANCOIS RIGOLLET, Appellant, v. LE MACARON DEVELOPMENT, LLC; ROSALIE GUILLEM; BERNARD GUILLEM; and DIDIER SABA, Appellees. 2nd District. Case No. 2D23-564. March 27, 2024. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sarasota County; Stephen Walker, Judge. Counsel: Jean François Rigollet, pro se. Kimberly D. Thresher and Dennis D. Leone of […]