GOLDEN & COWAN, P.A., ET AL., APPELLANTS.
v.
THE ESTATE OF HILDA KOSOFSKY, 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 court held that while the trial court improperly allowed telephonic testimony without proper objection, this error was harmless due to independent evidence supporting the decision.
[1] A trial court may allow telephonic testimony if all parties consent, pursuant to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.530(d)(1).
[2] The improper admission of evidence constitutes harmless error if it does not result in a miscarriage of justice.
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 intelligenceThe trial court allowed telephonic testimony from a witness in Israel in a homestead determination case. The appellant objected to this testimony.…
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 Independent Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from an order granting appellee Golden & Cowan, P.A., et al.’s Petition to Determine Homestead entered in appellee Estate of Hilda Kosofsky’s favor in which the trial court allowed the telephonic testimony of Philip Gilbert. We affirm because the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it allowed the telephonic testimony.
Golden & Cowan argue that the trial court abused its discretion when it allowed the telephonic testimony for two reasons. The first is that Golden & Cowan objected to the testimony before it was introduced. Next, the trial court allowed Philip Gilbert to testify from Israel without a notary public or any person authorized to administer an oath present.
Under Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.530(d)(1), a judge may, if all parties consent, allow the use of telephonic testimony. Although the court considered the inconvenience of making Philip Gilbert travel from Israel to testify over a single asset, the trial court’s introduction of the telephonic testimony was improper in light of the objection Golden & Cowan raised.
However, the improper introduction of the telephonic testimony constituted harmless error due to the existence of other independent evidence which would have led the trial court to reach the same conclusion. See White Constr. Co. v. Dupont, 455 So.2d 1026, 1029 (Fla.1984) (holding that improperly admitted evidence constitutes harmless error, unless admitting the evidence “[h]as resulted in a miscarriage of justice.”). Here, if the trial court ordered a new trial, the court would have reached the same result finding that the property represented the homestead of the deceased. In the Petition for Determining Homestead, for example, Philip Gilbert declared that the subject property was the *988homestead of the deceased. This is the same issue that Golden & Cowan raised during Philip Gilbert’s telephonic testimony.
Thus, the introduction of the telephonic testimony did not result in a miscarriage of justice. We therefore affirm.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Allen R. and Jill F. Greenwald v. Eisinger, Brown, Lewis & Frankel, P.A., 118 So. 3d 867 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)…tions or inaction in the underlying transaction and whether those actions or inaction fell below the agreed-upon standards of care. [*872] Any alleged error was harmless. See § 59.0410, Fla. Stat. (2012); Golden & Co-wan, P.A. v. Estate of Kosofsky, 45 So. 3d 986 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010).…
-
Brown v. State, 101 So. 3d 381 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…clear and convincing evidence that the appellant’s mental condition remained such that it was not safe for him to be at large and that, if released, he was likely to engage in acts of sexual violence. Cf. Golden & Cowan, P.A. v. Estate of Kosofsky, 45 So. 3d 986 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (holding that the trial court’s error in allowing telephonic testimony over the appellant’s objection and in violation of rule 2.530(d)(1) was harmless due to the existence of other independent evidence which would have supported…
-
Rivero v. State, 121 So. 3d 1175 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)…evidentiary hearing over the defendant’s objection, this error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt where trial counsel’s testimony only provided additional evidence to refute the defendant’s claims. See Golden & Cowan, P.A. v. Estate of Kosofsky, 45 So. 3d 986, 987-88 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (holding that the trial court’s error in allowing telephonic testimony over the appellant’s objection and in violation of rule 2.530(d)(1) was harmless due to the existence of other independent evidence which would have su…
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
- White Constr. Co., Inc. v. Dupont, 455 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 1984)