LISA MARIE FALCO, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS THE PARENT AND NATURAL GUARDIAN OF THE PLAINTIFF, DEVON NEELY, A MINOR, PETITIONER,
v.
BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE NORTH AMERICA TIRE, LLC, SUCCESSOR TO BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE, INC., A FOREIGN CORPORATION, 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 Florida District Court of Appeal denied a petition for writ of certiorari seeking approval of a settlement of a minor child's negligence claim. The trial court had denied the settlement as inadequate under Florida law protecting minors' interests, and the appellate court found no departure from the essential requirements of law warranting extraordinary relief.
The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the trial court's denial of the settlement approval constituted a departure from the essential requirements of law warranting a writ of certiorari. The trial court properly exercised its discretion in finding the settlement inadequate and not in the minor's best interest.
[1] A petition for writ of certiorari will be denied when the petitioner fails to demonstrate that the trial court's order denying a proposed settlement of a minor's claim co…
[2] A trial court may deny a proposed settlement of a minor child's claim if the settlement is not in the minor's best interest.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“the guardian ad litem appointed to protect the minor child's interest had 'presented no basis for this Court to approve the settlement recommended by him.'”
Establishes the trial court's finding that the guardian ad litem failed to provide adequate justification for approving the proposed settlement.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe petitioner, mother of a minor child, suffered catastrophic injuries in an automobile accident that left her a paraplegic. She filed suit against B…
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 Guardian Ad Litem cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We deny the petition for writ of certiorari because the petition has not shown that the trial court’s order denying the proposed settlement of the minor child’s claim in negligence is a departure from the essential requirements of law.
Petitioner, mother of the minor child, suffered catastrophic injuries in an automobile accident and was rendered a paraplegic. Petitioner filed suit against Respondent and, during negotiations, the parties jointly settled Petitioner’s claims. The trial court, however, denied the motion to approve settlement of the minor child’s claim pursuant to section 744.887(1), Florida Statutes, finding, inter alia, that the guardian ad litem appointed to protect the minor child’s interest had “presented no basis for this Court to approve the settlement recommended by him.” § 744.387(1), Fla. Stat. (2005).
The trial court’s analysis was grounded, at least in part, on its determination that the settlement was so inadequate that it was not in the minor child’s best interest under section 744.387(1), Florida Statutes; thus, Petitioner has not demonstrated an entitlement to extraordinary relief.1 Petitioner’s appendix does not contain sufficient information to demonstrate that the trial court’s failure to approve the proposed settlement was a departure from the essential requirements of law.
Petition DENIED.
BENTON, POLSTON and THOMAS, JJ., concur. . Cf. Bullard v. Sharp, 407 So. 2d 1023, 1023-24 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) (granting writ of certiorari where court’s refusal to approve minor’s settlement pursuant to section 744.387(1), Florida Statutes, was based on the excessive amounts provided to the minors). Unlike Bullard, the trial court also relied on a separate, sufficient ground authorized by the legislature when reviewing settlements to minor parties.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Bullard v. Honorable G. Kendall Sharp, 407 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)