DONALD LAWSON AND RONDA LAWSON, APPELLANTS,
v.
JEFFREY LATHAM, 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.
The Lawsons appealed a directed verdict granted in favor of defendant Latham after a damages trial. The court reversed, holding that once default was entered and affirmed as establishing Latham's liability for fraud, the trial court erred in directing a verdict on damages, which was a jury question.
The trial court erred in directing a verdict for Latham. Once the order of default was affirmed, it established Latham's liability on all claims including fraud. The amount of damages was a jury question that could not be removed from the jury's consideration.
[1] A prior appellate court affirmance of an order of default establishes a defendant's liability on all claims asserted, precluding a trial court from revisiting the issue o…
[2] A trial court errs in directing a verdict on liability after an order of default has been affirmed on appeal, as the only remaining issue for trial is the quantum of dama…
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“This court's affirmance of the order of default established Latham's liability on all claims asserted by the Lawsons.”
Establishes that the prior appellate affirmance of default became the law of the case, precluding the trial court from revisiting liability.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Lawsons sued Latham and other defendants for fraud, conspiracy, and breach of contract. After defendants' discovery violations, the trial court st…
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 Default Judgment As Sanction cases and more on FLexlaw
JORGENSON, Judge.
Donald and Ronda Lawson appeal from a final judgment in which the trial court granted a motion for a directed verdict in favor of Jeffrey Latham. For the following reasons, we reverse and remand for a new trial on the issue of damages.
The Lawsons sued seven individual and corporate defendants on various causes of action, including fraud, conspiracy, and breach of contract. After protracted discovery violations by defendants, the trial court struck defendants’ pleadings and entered a default against defendants on all claims asserted by the Lawsons. Jeffrey Latham, one of the defendants, appealed the order of default. This court affirmed. Latham v. Lawson, 526 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). At the close of the jury trial on the issue of damages,1 the trial court granted defendant Latham’s motion for a directed verdict on the grounds that the Lawsons had made no showing that La-tham’s conduct was knowing, willful, or wanton. The trial court later clarified its ruling, stating that the Lawsons were entitled to neither compensatory nor punitive damages from Lawson on their fraud claim.2
The trial court erred in directing a verdict for Latham. This court’s affirmance of the order of default established La-tham’s liability on all claims asserted by the Lawsons. See American Fidelity Fire Ins. Co. v. Woody’s Electric Serv., Inc., 407 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (default entered as sanction for refusal to comply with discovery requests established liability, including element of causation). “[Qjuestions of law which have been decided by the highest appellate court become the law of the case which, except in extraordinary circumstances, must be followed in subsequent proceedings, both in the lower and the appellate courts.” Brunner Enter., Inc., v. Dept. of Revenue, 452 So. 2d 550, 552 (Fla.1984).3 Latham’s liability for fraud had been established; the trial court was not free to revisit the issue. All that the Lawsons had to prove at trial was the amount of damages to which they were entitled. The quantum of damages that the Lawsons could recover for La-tham’s fraud was a question for the jury.4 The trial court committed reversible error by removing that question from the jury’s consideration.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial on damages as to defendant Latham.
Reversed and remanded.
. Only the claims for fraud and conspiracy were tried; the remaining claims involved liquidated damages.
. Plaintiffs objected to entry of a directed verdict in favor of Latham and unsuccessfully moved for a new trial on the ground that the order of default established Latham’s liability for fraud.
. Per curiam affirmances, like the one entered in Latham’s appeal of the order of default, become the law of the case. State Comm'n on Ethics v. Sullivan, 430 So. 2d 928 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 436 So. 2d 101 (Fla.1983).
. The Lawsons were entitled to have the jury determine their entitlement to both compensatory and punitive damages. ”[P]roof of fraud sufficient to support compensatory damages necessarily is sufficient to create a jury question regarding punitive damages." First Interstate Dev. Co. v. Ablanedo, 511 So. 2d 536, 539 (Fla. 1987).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lidia Moreno v. Allen, 692 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…ult is required for two equally compelling reasons. (a) The awards run directly contrary to the letter, spirit, and thus “the law of the [previous] case,” Brunner Enters., Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 452 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 1984); Lawson v. Latham, 564 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Flinn v. Shields, 545 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), which carefully restricted the sums to be paid from the settlement specifically so that the windfall created by the George,Hartz firm’s inability to receive its entire continge…
-
Austral Lineas Aereas Cielos DEL SUR v. Gimenez, 827 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…um for this case is Argentina, see Aerolineas Argentinas, S.A. v. Gimenez, 807 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002), cert. denied, No. 02-461, 828 So. 2d 386 (Fla. Sept. 23, 2002), the law of the case doctrine renders this issue moot. See Lawson v. Latham, 564 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (“[Q]uestions of law which have been decided by the highest appellate court become the law of the case which, except in extraordinary circumstances, must be followed in subsequent proceedings, both in the lower and the appellate c…
-
DG Sports Agency, LLC v. First Round Mgmt., LLC, 174 So. 3d 541 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…ny did not cause the delay in the construction project. The appellate court reversed the trial court, holding that the default established liability and that liability established that the electrical company breached the contract. Lawson v. Latham, 564 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), is also instructive. In Lawson, although the trial court entered a default against a defendant, at trial it entered a directed verdict for the defendant. The Third District reversed, finding that the default established the defen…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- First Interstate Dev. Corp. v. Ablanedo, 511 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 1987)
- Brunner Enters., Inc. v. Dep't OF Revenue of the State of Fla., 452 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 1984)
- Oscar's Lounge, Inc. v. Dep't of Bus. Reg., 430 So. 2d 928 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Am. Fid. Fire Ins. Co. v. Woody's Elec. Serv., Inc., 407 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Latham v. Lawson, 526 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)