192 So. 3d 546
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2016Background
- In 2004 Haynes (Appellant) sold land to Arman and Lugo (Appellees) and reserved surrounding property; deed and contract included recorded easements for ingress/egress across Haynes’s property.
- The parties’ relationship deteriorated and Appellees sued Haynes in 2010; the operative third amended complaint (2015) asserted fraud in the inducement, breach of contract/trespass on the case, slander/disparagement of title, trespass, unjust enrichment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress; Appellees demanded a jury trial.
- Appellees moved for summary judgment and submitted affidavits, a hearing transcript excerpt, and a schedule of damages including compensatory items, a $97,500 mental-anguish figure, $10,000 trespass figure, and a claimed treble damages calculation totaling over $1.5 million.
- Haynes, pro se, opposed with a detailed response and his own affidavit and exhibits; the trial court nevertheless entered final summary judgment awarding compensatory damages of $494,485.34, punitive damages of $1,483,456.00 (exactly treble the compensatory award), attorney’s fees, and costs (total ≈ $2,006,890.09).
- The Fifth District reversed most of the final summary judgment, holding disputed material facts existed and that determinations about punitive and non-economic damages are for a jury; the court affirmed only the injunction protecting Appellees’ recorded easements but remanded damages for the jury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether punitive damages could be awarded by the court on summary judgment despite a jury demand | Arman/Lugo asserted entitlement to punitive damages and submitted a damages schedule supporting a trebled award | Haynes argued factual disputes and his right to jury determination of punitive damages | Reversed: punitive damages determination and amount must be first judicially permitted then decided by jury where a jury trial was demanded |
| Whether fraud in the inducement was appropriate for summary judgment | Arman/Lugo argued facts supported summary adjudication on fraud | Haynes argued disputes of material fact required trial | Reversed: fraud in inducement not suited for summary disposition; factual development/jury required |
| Whether non-economic damages (pain and suffering/mental anguish) can be awarded as matter of law on summary judgment | Arman/Lugo presented mental-anguish figures and sought award | Haynes contended such damages are for jury assessment and factual disputes exist | Reversed: non-economic damages are within jury province and cannot be summarily awarded |
| Whether the trial court properly enjoined obstruction of recorded easements and whether damages for easement interference were properly awarded on summary judgment | Arman/Lugo sought injunction and damages for easement interference | Haynes opposed; disputed facts over interference and damages | Affirmed in part: injunction prohibiting obstruction of ingress/egress affirmed; any damages for easement interference reversed and remanded for jury determination |
Key Cases Cited
- Volusia Cty. v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 2000) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Wackenhut Corp. v. Canty, 359 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 1978) (court decides legal sufficiency for punitive damages; jury decides whether and how much once issue submitted)
- Lashley v. Bowman, 561 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) (summary judgment inappropriate when reasonable inferences differ)
- Moore v. Morris, 475 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 1985) (summary judgment standards and inferences)
- Joseph v. Liberty Nat’l Bank, 873 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (fraud in inducement generally not appropriate for summary disposition)
- Waddell v. Shoney’s, Inc., 664 So. 2d 1134 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (non-economic damages are for jury assessment)
- Shasho v. Euro Motor Sport, Inc., 979 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (jury demand cannot be withdrawn without consent)