ARLAND WAYNE LAFFERTY AND PEGGY JO LAFFERTY, APPELLANTS,
v.
RALPH B. TENNANT, 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.
Dr. and Mrs. Lafferty appealed a judgment in favor of Dr. Tennant, challenging damages awarded against both defendants and attorney's fees awarded against Dr. Lafferty. The court reversed the damages against Mrs. Lafferty because the jury verdict contained no findings regarding her conduct, and reversed the attorney's fees award because the non-party title insurance company that funded the litigation established no contractual basis for liability.
Mrs. Lafferty is entitled to relief from the damages portion of the judgment because a judgment must conform to the verdict and the jury made no finding regarding her tortious conduct. Dr. Lafferty's liability for attorney's fees must be reversed because the non-party title insurance company established no contractual basis for recognizing liability to it.
[1] A judgment must conform to the jury's verdict.
[2] A party is entitled to relief from a damages award when the jury made no finding of tortious conduct against that party.
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“A judgment must conform to the verdict.”
Establishes the foundational principle that required reversal of damages against Mrs. Lafferty when the jury verdict contained no findings regarding her conduct
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis action was tried before a jury using an interrogatory verdict form. All interrogatories referred only to Dr. Lafferty, with no questions posed to…
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 Attorney'S Fees Recovery cases and more on FLexlaw
DANAHY, Acting Chief Judge.
In a suit brought by the appellee (Dr. Tennant) against the appellants (Dr. Laf-ferty and Mrs. Lafferty), Dr. and Mrs. Laf-ferty appeal a final judgment for Dr. Ten-nant, a postjudgment order denying Mrs. Lafferty’s motion for relief from the damages portion of the judgment, and a post-judgment order awarding attorney’s fees against Dr. Lafferty. The appeals were consolidated by this court.
We agree with Mrs. Lafferty that the trial judge erred in awarding damages against her in the final judgment, and we reverse the final judgment to that extent.
We affirm the final judgment in all other respects.
We agree with Dr. Lafferty that the trial judge erred in awarding attorney’s fees against him, and we reverse that order. This action was tried before a jury which returned an interrogatory form of verdict. All of the interrogatories referred only to Dr. Lafferty; as far as the verdict shows, the jury was not asked any question concerning alleged tortious conduct on the part of Mrs. Lafferty and made no finding in that regard. A judgment must conform to the verdict. Baker & Holmes Co. v. Indian River-State Bank, 61 Fla. 106, 55 So. 836 (1911).
Accordingly, Mrs. Lafferty is entitled to relief from the damages portion of the final judgment.
We find the order awarding attorney’s fees to be in error because Dr. Tennant incurred no liability for attorney’s fees. It is undisputed that the title insurance company involved in the real estate transaction giving rise to this action has funded the litigation on behalf of Dr. Tennant. When the trial judge was informed of this, he entered an amended order directing that any attorney’s fees recovered by Dr. Ten-nant from Dr. Lafferty should be paid over to the title insurance company. Since the title insurance company is not a party to this action, it has established no basis for recognizing any liability on the part of Dr. Lafferty to the title insurance company. The trial judge, therefore, was in error in directing that Dr. Tennant’s recovery of attorney’s fees should be paid by him to the title insurance company.
For the reasons stated above, we reverse the final judgment insofar as it awards damages in favor of Dr. Tennant against Mrs. Lafferty. We find no merit to the other challenges made by Dr. and Mrs. Lafferty to the final judgment and affirm the final judgment in all other respects. We reverse the amended order awarding attorney’s fees.
Reversed in part and affirmed in part.
SCHOONOVER and PARKER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Aspen v. Bayless, 552 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…e incurred in her name, were reimbursed to her counsel or paid for by her insurance carrier, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company,” citing City of Boca Raton v. Boca Villas Corp., 372 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979) and Lafferty v. Tennant, 528 So. 2d 1307 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). This appeal followed. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442 provides that “[a]t any time more than ten days before trial begins a party defending against a claim may serve an offer on the adverse party to allow judgment to be ta…
-
Turner v. D.N.E., Inc., 547 So. 2d 1245 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…this case, the plaintiff argues that because the defendant stipulated that it did not have to pay the expenses and was not obligated under its insurance policy to reimburse its insurer, the award was in error. We agree. See also Lafferty v. Tennant, 528 So. 2d 1307 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). REVERSED AND REMANDED. LETTS, WALDEN and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.…
-
Gordon T. Couch, M.D. v. Drew, 554 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…s the Drews’ contention at the hearing that the payment of the fees and costs by Couch’s insurance carrier obviated his statutory entitlement thereto. In support of their argument with regard to attorney’s fees, the Drews cited Lafferty v. Tennant, 528 So. 2d 1307 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). Lafferty involved a dispute over real estate filed by Tennant against the Laffertys, in which Tennant prevailed. In the decretal portion of the opinion, the court reversed an award of attorney’s fees to Tennant (the basis therefo…
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
- Baker & Holmes Co. v. Indian River State Bank, 61 Fla. 106 (Fla. 1911)