JOHN F. HANN AND ELLEN M. STUKE-HANN, APPELLANTS,
v.
WILLIAM D. BALOGH, JR., DEBORAH J. BALOGH, PHILIP J. NEUMANN, JR., CAROL NEUMANN, AND NANCY ROBERTSON, 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 Hanns appealed a trial court order taxing costs for an expert witness fee paid to attorney Ross Payne, who testified about the legal interpretation of deeds regarding disputed easements. The court reversed, holding that expert opinion testimony on legal interpretation of deeds is not admissible and therefore the expert witness fee should not have been taxed as costs.
No. Expert opinion testimony regarding the legal interpretation of deeds is not proper expert testimony, and therefore the trial court abused its discretion in awarding the motion to tax costs for such an expert witness fee.
[1] Expert testimony is not admissible for legal argument or the legal interpretation of Florida law.
[2] The construction of language in a deed is a legal determination to be made by the trial judge, not by expert opinion.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“opinion testimony as to the legal interpretation of Florida law is not a proper subject of expert testimony”
Establishes the core rule that expert witnesses cannot testify about legal interpretation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Hanns own waterfront property. Their neighbors (the Baloughs, Neumanns, and Robertson) claimed they had two easements over the Hanns' property 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 Easement Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
VILLANTI, Judge.
John Hann and Ellen Stuke-Hann appeal the trial court’s order granting a motion to tax costs for Attorney Ross E. Payne’s expert witness fee in the amount of $5190. Because the defense called Payne to offer only his legal opinion, we reverse.
The Hanns own waterfront property. Their neighbors, William and Deborah Balogh, Philip and Carol Neumann, and Nancy Robertson (the Appellees), asserted that they had two easements over the Hanns’ property to build and access a dock on the water. The Hanns filed a complaint for declaratory judgment construing the deeds to determine whether the language was sufficient to create the two easements. The Appellees called Payne as an expert witness in their defense over the Hanns’ objection that Payne’s testimony was “nothing more than legal argument” and “not admissible for expert opinion.”
According to Payne’s testimony, he “was asked to look at the pleadings and the parties’ positions with an eye toward forming an opinion as to the creation of the two easements at issue.” Payne “reviewed the pleadings, including the most recent motion for partial summary judgment” and the deeds and depositions. He then formed the opinion that “the 35 foot turnaround easement may have been created depending on how the finder of fact — how this Court construes the evidence relating to the intention of the parties.... ” He further testified that the trial court should examine the intent of the parties at the time the deed was written, and that there might be an easement by implication. Payne’s testimony consisted only of his opinion as to the legal interpretation of the deeds.
This court has repeatedly held that “opinion testimony as to the legal interpretation of Florida law is not a proper subject of expert testimony.” See, e.g., Brophy v. Condon (In re Estate of Williams), 771 So. 2d 7, 8 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Construction of language in a deed “is a legal determination to be made by the trial judge, with the assistance of counsels’ legal arguments, not by way of ‘expert opinion.’ ” See Lee County v. Barnett Banks, Inc., 711 So. 2d 34, 34 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (discussing expert opinion about statutory construction). Accordingly, the Appellees are not entitled to an expert witness fee award. See id. The trial court abused its discretion in awarding the motion to tax costs for Payne’s expert witness fee, and we reverse.
Reversed.
ALTENBERND and NORTHCUTT, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jones v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2021)…department does not license businesses as contractors. Mr. Thomas did not attempt to interpret section 489.127(1) or explain the meaning of its terms. As such, the cases relied upon by the postconviction court are inapposite. Cf. Hann v. Balogh, 920 So. 2d 1250, 1251 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) ("This court has repeatedly held that 'opinion testimony as to the legal interpretation of Florida law is not a proper subject of expert testimony.' " (quoting Brophy v. Condon, 771 So. 2d 7, 8 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000))); Lee Coun…
Authorities Cited
- In re Est. OF Sharon Lee Williams. Donald R. Brophy v. Condon, 771 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- LEE Cnty. v. Barnett Banks, Inc., 711 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)