ROBERT SUTTER, APPELLANT,
v.
SISTER SHEILA HAMMOND, A CATHOLIC NUN, BY AND THROUGH BARBARA HAMMOND SUTTER, TRUSTEE, BARBARA HAMMOND SUTTER, INDIVIDUALLY, AND FIRST NATIONAL IN PALM BEACH, A DIVISION OF SOUTHEAST BANK, N.A., 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 reduced an excessive $4.5 million punitive damages award by remitting to the trial court to determine an appropriate remittitur or order a new trial on punitive damages.
Punitive damages may not be assessed in an amount that will bankrupt or destroy the defendant, and an award of $4.5 million was clearly excessive given the appellant's financial status.
[1] Punitive damages awards must be proportionate to a defendant's financial ability and cannot be set at an amount that will bankrupt or destroy the defendant.
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Punitive damages may not be assessed in an amount which will bankrupt or destroy the appellant.”
Court stating the governing legal principle for punitive damages awards.
Appellant Sutter was found liable for punitive damages in the amount of $4.5 million in a case involving Sister Sheila Hammond, Barbara Hammond Sutter…
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 Claim For Punitive Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this appeal, the appellant contends that the punitive damage award of $4.5 million is clearly excessive in light of the evidence presented as to the appellant’s financial status. Having reviewed the record submitted by the appellant, and the portions designated by the appellee with which appellant has provided the court, it is clear that an award of $4.5 million is greatly in excess of any measure of value of appellant’s financial ability in this case. Punitive damages may not be assessed in an amount which will bankrupt or destroy the appellant. Arab Termite and Pest Control of Florida, Inc. v. Jenkins, 409 So. 2d 1039 (Fla.1982); Hockensmith v. Waxier, 524 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988).
However, rather than ordering a new trial, it is appropriate to consider a remit-titur. Since the trial court judge is much more familiar with this case than we are, we remand to the trial court to enter an appropriate amount of remittitur. If, after reviewing this case, the trial court determines that it is impossible to determine an appropriate amount of remittitur, then he is directed to order a new trial on the issue of punitive damages. See University Community Hospital v. Martin, 328 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976).
ANSTEAD, GUNTHER and WARNER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- 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)
- Hockensmith v. Waxler, 524 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Univ. Cmty. Hosp. v. Martin, 328 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)