JAMES HARRIS SANDERS, APPELLANT,
v.
INVERSIONES VARIAS, S.A., (INVASA), APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
INVASA sued Sanders for breach of a commercial lease in Nicaragua. The trial court granted summary judgment for INVASA, rejecting Sanders's defense of impossibility of performance due to revolutionary hostilities. The appellate court reversed because the trial court failed to properly apply Nicaraguan law, which governed the lease, despite an unrecorded stipulation about the equivalence of Nicaraguan and Florida law on this issue.
The trial court erred in granting summary judgment because it failed to properly apply Nicaraguan law, which governed the lease. Although counsel stipulated that Florida and Nicaraguan law were identical on the impossibility defense, this stipulation was not recorded or incorporated into the stenographic notes and therefore could not be relied upon. The court could have taken judicial notice of Nicaraguan law only by following statutory procedures, which the record does not indicate were followed.
[1] An oral stipulation concerning the law governing a cause of action is not effective unless it is made a part of the record or incorporated in the stenographic notes of th…
[2] A trial court may take judicial notice of foreign law, but must follow the statutory procedures for doing so.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Stipulations concerning the practice or procedure in a cause may be made orally before the court, but are of no force unless made a part of the record or incorporated in the stenographic notes of the proceedings.”
Establishes that oral stipulations must be recorded to be enforceable, and the trial court could not rely on an unrecorded stipulation about equivalence of laws.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceINVASA sued Sanders in Florida for damages under a lease agreement concerning commercial properties in Managua, Nicaragua. Sanders, the lessee, assert…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Application Of Foreign Law cases and more on FLexlaw
NESBITT, Judge.
Inversiones Varias, S.A. (INVASA) sued Sanders in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit for damages pursuant to a lease agreement concerning commercial properties in Managua, Nicaragua. Sanders, the lessee, raised the affirmative defense of impossibility of performance due to revolutionary hostilities in Managua. The trial court found this defense insufficient as a matter of law and granted summary judgment of liability in favor of INVASA. This appeal was taken after final judgment in the cause.
Both parties are in agreement that the lease in suit is governed by Nicaraguan law. There is no indication in the record, however, that the trial court applied Nicaraguan law. Counsel for INVASA maintains that this is irrelevant because predecessor counsel for Sanders stipulated in open court that Florida law and Nicaraguan law are identical as concerns the defense of impossibility of performance. Although we have no reason to doubt this representation, we simply are not permitted to rely upon it. Stipulations concerning the practice or procedure in a cause may be made orally before the court, but are of no force unless made a part of the record or incorporated in the stenographic notes of the proceedings. Fla.R.Jud.Admin. 2.060(g). This was not done here.
Of course, the trial court could have taken judicial notice of Nicaraguan law pursuant to Section 90.202(4), Florida Statutes (1981), but only by following the procedure set out in either Section 90.203 or Section 90.204, Florida Statutes (1981). R.A. v. State, 400 So. 2d 1059, 1060-61 (Fla. 3d DCA) (Pearson, Daniel, J., concurring specially), pet. for review denied, 407 So. 2d 1105 (Fla.1981). Again, the record does not indicate that either procedure was followed. Thus, INVASA, proceeding as it was under Nicaraguan law,1 has failed to demonstrate that it was entitled to a judgment of liability as a matter of law.
This disposition renders discussion of the other points on appeal unnecessary.
Reversed and remanded.
. In its “WHEREFORE” clause, plaintiffs complaint demanded judgment against Sanders “for damages, plus interest, cost of suit, reasonable attorneys’ fees, other charges and damages allowable under Nicaraguan law-” (emphasis supplied)
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sanders v. Inversiones Varias, S.A., 449 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…PER CURIAM. Following this court’s opinion reported as Sanders v. Inversiones Varias, S.A. (Invasa), 436 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) the matter recurred in the trial court and on remand Sanders conducted more discovery, requested fees and costs, demanded jury trial and moved for non-resident bond pursuant to § 57.011 Florida Statute (1979). Almost 4 years after…
-
Utianski v. Ewing, 545 So. 2d 496 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…Truck Leasing, Inc. v. DeSerio, 468 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 480 So. 2d 1293 (Fla.1985); Nava v. State, 450 So. 2d 606, 609 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), cause dismissed, 508 So. 2d 14 (Fla.1987); Sanders v. Inversiones Varias, S.A. (Invasa), 436 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Di Teodoro v. Lazy Dolphin Dev. Co., 418 So. 2d 428, 429 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), rev. denied, 427 So. 2d 737 (Fla.1983); Dowd v. Star Mfg. Co., 385 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 392 So. 2d 1373 (Fla.1980); Jennings v. Stewar…
Authorities Cited
- R. A. v. State, 400 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)