659 So.2d 1254 (Fla.App. 4 Dist. 1995), 95-1796, Mayer v. Frank

• Docket Number: 95-1796.
• Citation: 20 Fla. L. Weekly D 1972,659 So.2d 1254
• Date: 30 August 1995
• Parties: Frederick MAYER and Gloria Mayer, Petitioners, v. Richard FRANK and Brenda Frank, his Wife, Respondents.
• Court: Florida Court of Appeals. Fourth District

Page 1254

659 So.2d 1254 (Fla.App. 4 Dist. 1995)

20 Fla. L. Weekly D 1972

Frederick MAYER and Gloria Mayer, Petitioners,

v.

Richard FRANK and Brenda Frank, his Wife, Respondents.

No. 95-1796.

Florida Court of Appeals, Fourth District.

August 30, 1995

Jeffrey P. Wasserman of Muchnick, Wasserman & Dolin, Hollywood, for petitioners.

Mark S. Barnett, Miami Beach, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

We grant this petition for writ of certiorari and quash the trial court order denying Petitioners' motion to strike a punitive damages claim.

Section 768.72, Florida Statutes, provides that "... no claim for punitive damages shall be permitted unless there is a reasonable showing ... which would provide a reasonable basis for recovery of such damages." Additionally, upon such a showing, a claimant may then "move to amend his complaint to assert a claim for punitive damages...."

Recently, in Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 658 So.2d 518 (Fla.1995), the supreme court recognized that certiorari review is appropriate to determine whether the trial court has conducted the evidentiary hearing required by section 768.72 prior to authorizing a punitive damages claim, approving this court's opinion in Sports Products, Inc. v. Estate of Inalien, 658 So.2d 1010 (Fla. 4th DCA Dec. 21, 1994), rev. dismissed, No. 84,988, 659 So.2d 1088 (Fla. June 7, 1995).

Here, Respondents filed a complaint that, in contravention of the plain proscription of

Page 1255

the statute, included a punitive damages claim without the prior showing required by law. According to Respondents, the denial of the motion to strike was based on the allegations in, admissions in, and attachments to, the pleadings. Petitioners dispute this and claim that the denial resulted from counsel's failing to attend the hearing, conducted without any review of the facts. In either event, we conclude that the order must be quashed as it is undisputed that the effect of the trial court order is to leave in place a punitive damages demand asserted without prior trial court authorization.

In Kraft General Foods, Inc. v. Rosenblum, 635 So.2d 106 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 642 So.2d 1363 (Fla.1994), this court quashed an order denying a motion to strike a punitive damages claim. In that case, no evidentiary hearing was held on the motion to strike, but the court denied the motion to strike and ordered the plaintiff to demonstrate the factual basis for the claim at a hearing to...