HELEN M. CARUSO, ETC., ET AL., PETITIONERS,
v.
EARL BAUMLE, RESPONDENT
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 mandamus relief is not appropriate because petitioners have not established a clear legal right to immediate relief, and the issue of post-trial collateral set-off can be raised on direct appeal.
[1] Mandamus relief is not appropriate to compel a trial court to enter a final judgment when the issue of post-trial collateral set-off can be raised on direct appeal.
[2] A party asserting an affirmative defense of collateral source offset must present admissible evidence of the offset amounts during trial.
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 intelligenceFollowing a jury verdict for the plaintiff in an automobile accident case, the defendant sought a set-off for amounts paid by the plaintiff's PIP cove…
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 Collateral Source Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
PLEUS, J.
By petition for writ of mandamus, the petitioners seek to quash an order denying a motion for entry of a final judgment in accordance with the verdict.
Following a jury trial in an automobile accident case, the jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff Caruso. The respondent, Earl Baumle, filed a motion for set-off seeking a set-off of amounts paid or payable by Caruso’s PIP coverage. Caruso moved for entry of a final judgment in accordance with the verdict, arguing that although Baumle asserted collateral source offsets for PIP benefits as affirmative defenses, Baumle failed to place in the record any admissible evidence as to the amounts of these offsets, and failed to prove his affirmative defenses. After a hearing, the trial court denied Caruso’s motion and allowed Baumle to present proof of the offset amounts post-trial.
Caruso asserts that mandamus relief is appropriate to compel the trial court to enter the judgment. She argues that she has a clear right to this judgment because Baumle failed to prove the defense of offset at trial and such post-trial discovery would set a bad precedent. We deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
Mandamus is a common law remedy that is used to enforce an established legal right by compelling a public officer to perform a duty required by law. See Walker v. Walker, 654 So. 2d 1049 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). The official duty in question must be ministerial and not discretionary. See Alexander v. City of Coral Gables, 745 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). Mandamus lies to compel a judge to rule on a case when there is no lawful basis to reserve ruling. See Quintana v. Barad, 528 So. 2d 1300 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988).
The petitioners have not established a clear legal right that the trial court has failed to act, nor otherwise any entitlement to immediate relief. The issue of a post-trial collateral set-off can be raised on direct appeal. See, e.g., Allstate Insurance Co. v. Scott, 2001 WL 9836 (Fla. 5th DCA Jan.5, 2001).
PETITION DENIED.
HARRIS and PETERSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Caruso v. Baumle, 880 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 2004)…at “[t]he petitioners have not established a clear legal right that the trial court has failed to act, nor otherwise any entitlement to immediate relief. The issue of a post-trial collateral set-off can be raised on direct appeal.” Caruso v. Baumle, 776 So. 2d 371, 372 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). Baumle then deposed Anthony Baracatt, the records custodian for plaintiffs’ PIP files. Baracatt verified that the plaintiffs’ automobile insurance policy provided $10,000 in PIP coverage for each plaintiff, with a $2000 de…
-
Wuesthoff Mem'l Hosp., Inc. v. Fla. Elections Comm'n, 795 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…rse final order. See, e.g., Iazzo v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Psychological Examiners, 638 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). In light of the adequacy of this remedy, we determine that mandamus will not lie. See Caruso v. Baumle, 776 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). Accordingly, we deny the petition without prejudice to Wuesthoff s right to argue that it was improperly denied a formal hearing in any appeal of a final order arising from the informal proceedings to be conducted below. MIN…
-
Seminole Ent., Inc. v. City OF Casselberry, 788 So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…ity of a Chief Judge to assign the case to a neutral judge, but merely to randomly reassign the case. If the Chief Judge chose a specific Judge to hear the case, petitioner or respondent would have grounds to complain. As stated in Caruso v. Baumle, 776 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001), a writ of mandamus enforces an established right by compelling public officers to perform a ministerial duty required by law and lies to compel a judge to rule when there is no lawful basis to reserve ruling. However, it is not…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Quintana v. The Honorable Frederick N. Barad, 528 So. 2d 1300 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Alexander v. The City OF Coral Gables, 745 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Walker v. Col. Stewart Walker and D.R. Lehr, 654 So. 2d 1049 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)