Professional Services Industry Legal Blog

In Florida, recovery of attorneys’ fees in eminent domain and inverse condemnation proceedings is governed by Sections 73.091 and 73.092 of the Florida Statutes. Section 73.092 provides a mechanism for determining an award of attorney fees, based on the “benefits achieved for the client.” But, what if the state agency/condemning authority excessively litigated the case, such that the formulaic computation under that statute was unfair to the property owner? A recent Florida Supreme Court case addressed this issue. Joseph B. Doerr Trust v. Central Florida Expressway Authority.

When the Florida Supreme Court wrote the Tiara Condominium opinion the legal community was unsure what the opinion meant. Tiara Condominium Association, Inc. v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc,., 110 So.3d 399 (Fla. 2013). The opinion clearly states that the economic loss doctrine is applicable only in the context of premises liability cases. However, did Tiara Condominium also eliminate the contractual privity economic loss rule, which was sometimes referred to as the independent tort doctrine? There still is not absolute clarity on this topic but the reasoned decision is that the independent tort doctrine preceded the economic loss rule and is not abolished by Tiara Condominium.

For both client and attorney, there is nothing better than a sweet victory in litigation. However, this victory may be bittersweet if there is no recovery of attorneys’ fees. This blog post is one out of a series of blog posts that will discuss the recovery of attorneys’ fees and issues related to recovery. Specifically, this blog post will discuss contractual entitlement to attorneys’ fees.

Does a party in a civil dispute have the right to raise the Fifth Amendment Privilege against self-incrimination? Yes. De Lisi v. Bankers Ins. Co., 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). Does the privilege extend to production of documents or just testimony? The privilege only extends to the production of documents unless the production itself is testimonial in nature. Briggs v. Salcines, 392 So.2d 263 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980) (“It then held that while the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination affords no protection to the contents of previously prepared documents, it does protect a person from producing documents under subpoena where the compelled production would amount to a forced testimonial communication which would be incriminating.”); see also, Fisher v. United States, 96 S. Ct. 1569 (1976). Whether the act of production is testimonial or not can be a complicated analysis. Essentially, if the government were to already know of the existence of documents and the location of such documents then production is not testimonial because the act of producing will not authenticate such documents or otherwise verify the existence of incriminating information.

A recent decision from the Fourth District Court of Appeals marks one of the first Florida appellate opinions holding that non-consumers may maintain a cause of action under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (“FDUTPA”). Given the broad—and almost limitless—scope of “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or business” prohibited by the act, some could foresee this decision as a precursor to FDUPTA claims being asserted by nearly every commercial litigant. Fortunately, the 4th DCA clarified the parameters on FDUPTA claims: while a claimant need not be a consumer to bring a FDUPTA claim, the claimant must still prove an injury or detriment to consumers to establish liability.

Whether you are a potential plaintiff or a potential defendant, in a business dispute, determining whether punitive damages can be successfully added to the claim is an important part of the legal analysis and should be considered as early in the process as possible. If you are a potential plaintiff, it is important to analyze whether a claim for punitive damages can be added. Successfully adding a claim for punitive damages will likely increase the potential value of the claim. If you are a potential defendant, it is important to understand whether a plaintiff can successfully move to add a claim for punitive damages based upon the causes of action pled.

Occasionally we are engaged to represent members of a closely held company who are being “squeezed out” of their business. This comes in many forms, but one of the fact patterns I have seen is when an LLC management committee meeting is conducted without notice, without proper quorum or in a way that makes the decisions voidable by the oppressed member/shareholder. Specifically, Florida law prohibits amendment to the bylaws of a company that are purposefully sought to restrict a particular shareholder’s original and vested contract rights, in an operating/ shareholder’s agreement or otherwise.

An agreement to arbitrate, which contains a class action waiver, can be an effective tool to help prevent small or moderate consumer claims from becoming class action lawsuits. Class consumer litigation, particularly that utilizing the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (hereinafter “FDUTPA”), has become en vogue over the last several years. As these types of class claims become more popular, it is more important to properly protect your business with well drafted agreements. It is also important to ensure that none of your agreements, if multiple agreements are necessary to complete a transaction, have conflicting terms.

By: Brittany N. Snell, Esq. and Austin B. Calhoun, Esq.
In 2013, the Florida Arbitration Code was amended and is now known as the “Revised Florida Arbitration Code” (“RFAC”). RFAC applies to all agreements to arbitrate that were made on or after July 1, 2013. Arbitration agreements entered into before July 1, 2013, may be subject to RFAC if all parties consent to RFAC’s application. Beginning July 1, 2016, an agreement to arbitrate, regardless of its date, will be subject to RFAC. Section 682.013, Florida Statutes (2014).

By: Brandon C. Meadows, Esq.
Many parties engaged in litigation are primarily concerned with resolving their disputes through the most cost-efficient means. In the early stages of litigation, clients pose some version of the following question: “Who is going to pay my legal fees?” Under the common law, each party should bear their own legal expenses incurred. However, entitlement to fees can exist if provided by contract or statute. Because contractual and statutory entitlement to fees is in derogation to the common law, strict compliance with the contract or statute is required. This article addresses a party’s ability to recover statutory attorneys’ fees through strict compliance with the rules and statutes regarding a Proposal for Settlement.