GILLER GROUP, LTD., ETC., APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
BRIAN GILLER, ETC., ET AL., APPELLEES/CROSS-APPELLANTS
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.
Giller Group, Ltd. appealed a trial court's denial of its motion for new trial following a jury verdict, while Brian Giller cross-appealed various adverse rulings. The appellate court affirmed the judgment and all challenged orders, finding that Giller Group's motion was not properly preserved by contemporaneous objection and that the trial court properly directed verdicts and entered summary judgments against Brian Giller's counterclaims.
The appellate court affirmed that Giller Group's motion for new trial was not properly preserved because no contemporaneous objection to the verdict form was made before jury discharge. The court also affirmed the directed verdicts on three counterclaims for lack of standing and the summary judgments on the remaining counterclaims. The court affirmed the discovery sanctions as within the trial court's discretion.
[1] An objection to the form of a verdict must be made before the discharge of the jury to allow for correction of any error.
[2] Failure to object to the form of a verdict when it is presented to the court waives any objection to its form.
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“Florida courts have required any objection to the form of the verdict to be made before the discharge of the jury to allow correction of a correctable error.”
Establishes the requirement for contemporaneous objection to preserve verdict challenges
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involved a dispute between Giller Group, Ltd. and Brian Giller, individually and as trustee of the Norman Giller Trust. A jury rendered a ver…
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 Money Lent cases and more on FLexlaw
In this consolidated appeal, Giller Group, Ltd. appeals from a final judgment and a final order denying Giller Group, Ltd.’s motion to set aside verdict and for new trial. In their cross-appeal, Brian Giller, individually and as trustee of the Norman Giller Trust, appeal from the trial court’s orders that: directed a verdict in favor of Giller Group, Ltd. on three counts of Brian Giller’s counterclaim based on lack of standing; entered summary judgment in favor of Giller Group, Ltd. on Brian Giller’s counterclaims for money lent, breach of fiduciary duty, indemnity and gratuitous assumption of risk; and imposed sanctions upon Brian Giller for discovery violations.
We affirm the final judgment and the trial court’s order denying Giller Group, Ltd.’s motion to set aside verdict and for new trial, as the claim was not properly preserved by a contemporaneous objection to the form of the verdict. See Progressive Select Ins. Co. v. Lorenzo, 49 So.3d 272, 276 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (observing that “Florida courts have required any objection to the form of the verdict to be made before the discharge of the jury to allow correction of a correctable error. Higbee v. Dorigo, 66 So.2d 684, 685 (Fla.1953). When that verdict is rendered and ‘no objection appears to have been made to the form of verdict when the same was presented to the court, the form thereof was waived.’ General Motors [Acceptance Corp. v. Judge of Circuit Court, 102 Fla. 924] 136 So. [621] at 622 [ (1931) ]. This requirement has withstood the test of time and remains the law today.”) (Additional citations omitted.)
As to the claims raised in Brian Giller’s cross-appeal, and upon our de novo review, we affirm the trial court’s order directing a verdict in favor of Giller Group, Ltd. on Brian Giller’s counterclaims for breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation and breach of warranty, given the absence of any evidence at trial to establish Brian Giller’s standing as a trust beneficiary. We also affirm the summary judgment orders in favor of Giller Group, Ltd. on Brian Giller’s counterclaims for money lent, breach of fiduciary duty, indemnity and gratuitous assumption of risk.
Finally, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s determination that Brian Giller failed to comply with discovery requests and its decision to award attorney’s fees incurred by the opposing party in an effort to obtain compliance. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.380(a)(4), (b). Compare Channel Components, Inc. v. Am. II Elec., Inc., 915 So.2d 1278, 1283 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (holding that where the court imposes “a monetary sanction or fine unconnected to the expenses (such as attorneys’ fees) caused by the failure to provide discovery,” such a sanction “must be predicated upon a finding of contempt.”).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Higbee et ux. v. Dorigo, 66 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 1953)
- Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Judge of the Cir. Court, 102 Fla. 924 (Fla. 1931)
- Channel Components, Inc. v. Am. II Elecs., Inc., 915 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Progressive Select Ins. Co., Inc. v. Lorenzo, 49 So. 3d 272 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)