FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
CARMEN J. GROSSO, JAMES M. CHERESKIN, AND BARBARA A. CHERESKIN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, 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.
Fidelity National Title Insurance Company appealed a class certification order, arguing the trial court failed to comply with Florida procedural rules requiring findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded, holding that certification of a class without such findings is reversible error.
Certification of a class by an order lacking findings of fact and conclusions of law is reversible error. The appellate court reversed and remanded for the trial court to enter an order complying with Rule 1.220(d)(1).
[1] A trial court is required to state findings of fact and conclusions of law when certifying a class.
[2] Failure to make findings of fact and conclusions of law when certifying a class requires reversal.
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“When certifying a class, a trial court is required to indicate the findings of fact and conclusions of law that it has made.”
Establishes the mandatory procedural requirement for class certification orders
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCarmen J. Grosso filed a class action complaint on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, asserting compliance with Florida Rules of Civil P…
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 Class Certification Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
When certifying a class, a trial court is required to indicate the findings of fact and conclusions of law that it has made. When the trial court fails to meet both requirements, reversal is required. Because the trial court below certified a class without making findings of fact and conclusions of law, we reverse and remand so that it may comply with the requirements of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.220(d)(1).
Carmen J. Grosso, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint alleging that it complied with Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.220(a) and 1.220(b)(3). Fidelity National Title Insurance Company opposed the certification, arguing that the entitlement to relief of each individual within the class would have to be examined separately and therefore a class action was not the most appropriate vehicle available. After a hearing to determine whether class certification was appropriate, the trial court granted class certification; however, it failed to make factual findings or conclusions of law. Further, it did not specify which section of rule 1.220(b) the certification was based.
Certifying a class by an order that does not contain findings of fact and conclusions of law is reversible error. Integon Corp. v. Gordon, 953 So.2d 725 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (“Because the order fail[ed] to ‘separately state the findings of fact ... upon which the determination [wa]s based’ as required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.220(d)(1), [the First District] reverse[d] and remand[ed] with directions that the trial court comply with that provi*523sion”). If evidence is not presented to the trial court, which could demonstrate a proper factual basis for class certification, it is an abuse of discretion to certify the class. Seminole Cnty. v. Tivoli Orlando Assocs. Ltd., 920 So.2d 818, 824 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). Without an order containing findings of facts and conclusions of law based on the facts, we are unable to review whether the requirements for class certification have been met. We remand this case for entry of an order that complies with Rule 1.220.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
GROSS, CIKLIN and CONNER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Zacarias Cabrera v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Assoc., 281 So. 3d 516 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)…eview by denying the motion to amend. Yet to determine whether the court has abused its discretion, the appellate court must have the benefit of the findings of fact and conclusions of law by the trial court. Fidelity Nat’l Title Ins. Co. v. Grosso, 110 So. 3d 521, 522 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). We therefore reverse and remand for the trial court to grant the amendment to assert Count I as a class action and then to consider whether the counterclaim can and should be asserted as a class action. As to Count II,…
Authorities Cited
- Seminole Cnty. v. Tivoli Orlando Assocs. Ltd., 920 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
- Integon Corp. v. Gordon, 953 So. 2d 725 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)