HARRY D. HOCKENSMITH AND PHILLIPS, MCFARLAND, GOULD & WAGSTAFF, P.A., APPELLANTS,
v.
JOHN I. WAXLER AND MARY J. WAXLER, HIS WIFE, APPELLEES
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.
The court held that the trial court erred in denying the law firm's motion for remittitur or a new trial on punitive damages because the award greatly exceeded the firm's net worth.
Appellants, a law firm and an individual, appealed a jury award for fraud and failure to deliver a correct warranty deed. The law firm argued the puni…
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 Net Worth cases and more on FLexlaw
THREADGILL, Judge.
Appellants, Harry D. Hockensmith and the law firm of Phillips, McFarland, Gould and Wagstaff, P.A., defendants below, appeal a jury award of compensatory and punitive damages in favor of appellees in an action for fraud and failure to deliver a correct warranty deed. Several points on appeal were raised by the appellants. We find merit only in the law firm’s argument that the trial court erred in denying its motion for remittitur or new trial on the award of punitive damages.
The law firm argues that the amount of punitive damages greatly exceeds its net worth and should be reduced or that a new trial should be ordered. We agree. The firm presented unrebutted evidence at trial, that its net worth was $67,400. The appel-lees presented no evidence of the firm’s financial worth. The jury awarded $250,-000 in punitive damages against the firm.
It is clear that the appellees are not required to offer evidence of the firm’s ability to pay an award, Rinaldi v. Aaron, 314 So. 2d 762 (Fla.1975), and the amount of punitive damages is generally within the province of the jury. Florida East Coast Railway Co. v. Morgan, 213 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). However, punitive damages may not be assessed in an amount which will clearly bankrupt or destroy a defendant. Arab Termite & Pest Control of Florida, Inc. v. Jenkins, 409 So. 2d 1039 (Fla.1982), on remand, 422 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). In this case, the award of punitive damages greatly exceeded the firm’s net worth. Therefore, the denial of the motion for remittitur was error. Accordingly, we remand for remittitur of punitive damages. In the event remittitur of punitive damages is rejected, we reverse and remand for new trial on the issue of the amount of punitive damages. Smith v. Telophase, 471 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); 3 Fla.Jur.2d, Appellate Review, § 354. In all other respects the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part.
DANAHY, C.J., and RYDER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Liggett Grp. Inc. v. Howard A. Engle, M.D., 853 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…ontrol of Florida, Inc. v. Jenkins, 409 So. 2d 1039, 1043 (Fla.1982); Lipsig v. Ramlawi, 760 So. 2d 170, 188 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), review denied, 786 So. 2d 579 (Fla.2001); Brooks v. Rios, 707 So. 2d 374, 375 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Hockensmith v. Waxier, 524 So. 2d 714, 715 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988).27 And yet, that is precisely what occurred in the instant case. This trial produced the largest punitive damage verdict in American legal history. As acknowledged by even the plaintiffs’ purported experts, the $145 billion…
-
Lipsig v. Zahid A. Ramlawi, 760 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…provide some retribution and deterrence, it should not be an amount which will financially destroy or bankrupt a defendant. See Arab Termite & Pest Control, Inc. v. Jenkins, 409 So. 2d 1039, 1043 (Fla.1982). To illustrate, in Hockensmith v. Waxler, 524 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), the jury awarded the plaintiff $250,000 in punitive damages. This amount represented almost four times the defendant’s unrebutted $67,400 net worth. The court held that the award was excessive, it concluded that punitive damages…
-
Brooks v. Rios, 707 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…t be in an amount which will financially destroy or bankrupt the defendant. See Arab Termite & Pest Control, Inc. v. Jenkins, 409 So. 2d 1039, 1043 [*376] (Fla.1982); Sutter v. Hammond, 545 So. 2d 497, 498 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Hockensmith v. Waxier, 524 So. 2d 714, 715 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Smith v. Telophase Nat’l Cremation Soc’y, Inc., 471 So. 2d 163, 170 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); City Stores Co. v. Mazzaferro, 342 So. 2d 827, 828 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). Although evidence of a defendant’s net worth (i.e., that amount…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Rinaldi v. Aaron, 314 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 1975)
- Arab Termite & Pest Control OF Fla., Inc. v. Jenkins, 409 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 1982)
- THE Florida BAR v. Hollingsworth, 409 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 1982)
- Ursula H. Smith v. Telophase Nat'l Cremation Soc'y, Inc., 471 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. Morgan, 213 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Jenkins v. Arab Termite & Pest Control OF Fla., Inc., 422 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)