CHRIS GRANIER GEARITY
v.
MARIA THERESA GRANIER STUART, SUSAN MARIE GRANIER LESKANIC, STAN JOSEPH GRANIER, OSCEOLA MEMORY GARDENS, INC., OSCEOLA MEMORY GARDENS II, INC., AND ERVIN LOUIS GRANIER, III
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 trial court erred in relying on Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 2.516 as applied to section 57.105's safe harbor provision service requirements, as clarified by Wheaton v. Wheaton. The case was reversed and remanded because the trial court never reached the merits of the sanctions motion.
[1] Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 2.516 does not apply to the service requirements of section 57.105's safe harbor provision for sanctions motions.
[2] An appellate court cannot affirm a trial court's decision on an alternative basis when the trial court failed to make factual findings or reach the merits of the underlyi…
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 intelligence“Appellant argues that, based on the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Wheaton v. Wheaton, 261 So. 3d 1236 (Fla. 2019), the trial court erred in relying on Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.516 as applied to the service requirements of section 57.105's safe harbor provision.”
This establishes the core legal issue on appeal regarding the proper service requirements for section 57.105 safe harbor notices.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceChris Granier Gearity filed a motion for sanctions under section 57.105, Florida Statutes, against her siblings Maria Theresa Granier Stuart, Susan Ma…
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.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
CHRIS GRANIER GEARITY,
Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D20-1593
MARIA THERESA GRANIER STUART, SUSAN MARIE GRANIER LESKANIC,
STAN JOSEPH GRANIER, OSCEOLA
MEMORY GARDENS, INC., OSCEOLA
MEMORY GARDENS II, INC., AND
ERVIN LOUIS GRANIER, III,
Appellees.
________________________________/
Opinion filed July 9, 2021
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Osceola County, Mike Murphy, Judge.
John W. Zielinski, of NeJame Law, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant.
Meredith Pitts Smith, of Copeland Covert & Smith PLLC, Altamonte Springs, for Appellees.
SASSO, J.
1 At all times pertinent to this appeal, Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.080(a) read: “Every pleading subsequent to the initial pleading, all orders, and every other document filed in the action must be served in conformity with the requirements of Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.516.” We do not address what implication the amendment to rule 1.080, effective April 8, 2021, would have on a similar fact pattern as that issue is not before us.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
EDWARDS, J., concur. COHEN, J., concurs specially, with opinion.
4
CASE NO. 5D20-1593
COHEN, J., concurring specially.
I concur with the majority opinion reversing the denial of Appellant’s motion for sanctions brought under section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2018). Although we reverse, it should be noted that the trial court understood the issues involved and did as was required, which was to apply this Court’s decision in Goersch.2 See Pardo v. State, 596 So. 2d 665, 666–67 (Fla. 1992) (“[I]f the district court of the district in which the trial court is located has decided the issue, the trial court is bound to follow it.” (quoting State v. Hayes, 333 So. 2d 51, 53 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976))). Nonetheless, I write to expand upon the footnote in the majority opinion so as to caution trial courts in applying this decision going forward. The Florida Supreme Court recently amended Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.080(a) to “require documents that are served but not filed with the court to be served in accordance with Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.516.” In re Amends. to Fla. R. Civ. P., 46 Fla. L. Weekly S61, S61 (Fla. Apr. 8, 2021). Arguably, based on the language of
2 The trial court did not have the benefit of Wheaton, as that decision was issued two days after it denied Appellant’s motion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Pardo v. State, 596 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 1992)
- State v. Primus Hayes, 333 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)
- Bueno v. Ilene Workman, 20 So. 3d 993 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)
- Maria E. Mendez-Perez, M.D. v. Jorge H. Perez-Perez, M.D., 656 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 1995)
- Wheaton v. Mardella Wheaton, 261 So. 3d 1236 (Fla. 2019)
- Klaus Goersch and Brigitte Goersch v. City OF Satellite Beach, 252 So. 3d 309 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Williams v. State, 65 So. 3d 135 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)