CITY OF HALLANDALE BEACH
v.
CAROLANN SHARKEY, INDIVIDUALLY, ETC.
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.
When a trial court's written order denying a motion to dismiss based on sovereign immunity contradicts its oral pronouncements regarding disputed factual issues, the oral pronouncement controls and the written order must be reversed and remanded.
[1] A trial court's oral pronouncement must control over a later written order.
[2] When a conflict exists between a court's oral pronouncement and its written order, the oral pronouncement controls.
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“A trial court's oral pronouncement must control over a later written order.”
Court citing precedent for the principle that controls when conflicts exist between oral and written orders
The City of Hallandale Beach moved to dismiss a negligence complaint arising from the City's handling of a deceased person's corpse based on sovereign…
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 Duty To Disclose cases and more on FLexlaw
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
CITY OF HALLANDALE BEACH,
Appellant,
v.
CAROLANN SHARKEY, individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Florence Wagner,
Appellee.
No. 4D19-730
[October 16, 2019]
Appeal of a nonfinal order from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; David A. Haimes, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE 17-023301 (08).
Jennifer Merino, City Attorney, and Andre McKenney, Deputy City Attorney, Hallandale Beach, for appellant.
Joshua I. Gornitsky of The Andersen Firm, PC, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, City of Hallandale Beach (City), appeals an order denying its motion to dismiss appellee’s complaint. The case arises from the City’s handling of the corpse of appellee’s relative. City argued that the negligence claim was barred by sovereign immunity. We reverse and remand the trial court’s order of clarification because it contradicts oral pronouncements and did not actually determine the immunity issue “as a matter of law.” Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(xi).1
DOES RULE 9.130 PERMIT AN APPEAL OF A NON-FINAL ORDER DENYING IMMUNITY IF THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO IMMUNITY AS A MATTER OF LAW BUT THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT EXPLICITLY PRECLUDE IT AS A DEFENSE?
During the hearing the trial court commented that the facts relative to the City’s “duty” needed to be explored. The trial court signed an order that day denying the City’s motion to dismiss and referring to the record for its ruling, noting the court reporter’s presence.
Subsequently, the City filed a motion to clarify and requested a written order to reflect that the trial court resolved the sovereign immunity issue “as a matter of law.” The City did not ask the trial court to revisit its ruling or reasoning.
Thereafter, the trial court entered a second order, again referencing its reasoning as stated on the record, adding that its ruling was “as a matter of law.” This order, attempting to clarify, is internally inconsistent given the trial court’s oral comments on the record that disputed factual issues exist surrounding the City’s duty. See Cajuste v. Herlitschek, 204 So. 3d 80, 83 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (determining that when a conflict exists between the court’s oral pronouncement and its written order, the oral pronouncement controls); Glick v. Glick, 874 So. 2d 1238, 1241 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (“A trial court’s oral pronouncement must control over a later written order.”). Consequently, we reverse the trial court’s second order and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded. GROSS, DAMOORGIAN and GERBER, JJ., concur.
* * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Fla. Highway Patrol, a division of Fla. Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Jackson, 238 So. 3d 430, 438 (Fla. 1st DCA), review granted sub nom. Fla. Highway Patrol v. Jackson, No. SC18-468, 2018 WL 6818899 (Fla. Dec. 27, 2018).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Florida Highway Patrol v. Lashonta Renea Jackson, 238 So. 3d 430 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)
- Guirlande Cajuste v. Herlitschek, 204 So. 3d 80 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)
- Glick v. Glick, 874 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)