Elmore v. Florida Power & Light Co.
Decision Date | 09 February 2005 |
Docket Number | No. 4D04-674., No. 4D04-88 |
Citation | 895 So.2d 475 |
Parties | Robert ELMORE and Lauderdale Sand & Fill, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellants, v. FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO., a Florida corporation, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Bruce S. Rogow and Beverly A. Pohl of Bruce S. Rogow, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellants.
Robert C. Grady and Michael D. Katz of Katz, Barron, Squitero, Faust, Brecker, Terzo, Friedberg & Grady, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.
Robert Elmore and Lauderdale Sand & Fill, Inc. ("LS & F"), counter-defendants, timely appeal both the final judgment entered in favor of Florida Power & Light Co. ("FPL"), counter-plaintiff, and the cost judgment entered thereafter. These appeals are consolidated for our review.
This case essentially presents a question of law regarding whether the undisputed date of the filing of a counterclaim needs to be submitted as evidence to a jury in order to survive a directed verdict on a statute of limitations affirmative defense.
In January 1999, Elmore and two other plaintiffs filed a complaint against FPL for trespass across their respective properties. On February 11, 1999, in response to this complaint, FPL filed a counterclaim against Elmore and a third party complaint against LS & F, Elmore's dredging and excavation company. The counterclaim alleged trespass, breach of the amended and restated easement, and negligence. The negligence counterclaim was the only claim still pending at the time of trial.
FPL had a contract with Elmore and LS & F that permitted them to dredge sand from a lake owned by FPL. The basis of FPL's negligence claim was that Elmore and LS & F negligently dredged and excavated the lake, resulting in loss of stability to transmission structures, anchors, guide wires, and power poles located on peninsulas in the lake and requiring FPL to relocate them. Elmore and LS & F denied acting negligently and raised statute of limitations and comparative negligence affirmative defenses.
After the close of all the evidence, FPL moved for a directed verdict on Elmore and LS & F's statute of limitations affirmative defense. Specifically, counsel for FPL asserted, Counsel for Elmore and LS & F disputed this claim.
Following a denial of FPL's motion for a directed verdict, a discussion ensued regarding the jury instructions. The attorneys informed the judge that they disagreed on the instruction regarding the sufficiency of the evidence of the statute of limitations affirmative defense. Both submitted proposed written instructions, thereby preserving the issue for appellate review. See Luthi v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp., 672 So.2d 650, 652 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). The judge selected Elmore and LS & F's proposed jury instruction which, in sum and substance, stated that the counterclaim would be barred by the statute of limitations on any claim that occurred prior to February 10, 1995. The parties then submitted proposed verdict forms to the court. Elmore's verdict form included the following question:
Did FPL file its action against Elmore and Lauderdale Sand & Fill, Inc. within four (4) years from the time it knew or should have known of the existence of its claim?
Counsel for FPL had a problem with the verdict form and a colloquy took place between counsel and the court. During the colloquy, the court sua sponte raised, for the first time, the issue regarding the lack of evidence as to the date the counterclaim was filed. The court found that the jury could not make a decision about the statute of limitations because the date the suit was filed was never submitted into evidence. Therefore, the court granted a directed verdict in favor of FPL on the statute of limitations defense. The jury found in favor of FPL on the negligence claim and awarded FPL the full amount of damages requested. The trial judge entered a final order in favor of FPL on October 2, 2003.
Elmore and LS & F filed a motion for a new trial arguing, among other things, that the trial court erred in excluding the statute of limitations instruction and granting FPL's directed verdict. They claimed that the entry of the directed verdict was improper because they did not need to submit evidence of the date the counterclaim was filed in order to prove their affirmative defense. They also asserted that even if they did need to present this evidence, the court could have taken judicial notice of the date. The court denied the motion and this appeal follows.
After entry of the final judgment, FPL moved to tax costs. The court granted the motion and taxed costs against Elmore and LS & F. Elmore and LS & F's appeal of this cost judgment has been consolidated with their appeal of the final judgment. Elmore and LS & F assert that if the final judgment is reversed, this court should also reverse the cost judgment.
Elmore and LS & F argue on appeal that the trial court erred in granting a directed verdict on their statute of limitations affirmative defense. They assert that while the date that FPL knew or should have known about the alleged negligence is a disputed issue of fact, the date that the lawsuit was filed is not a disputed fact that needed to be submitted to the jury. They maintain that the date their counterclaim was filed is an undisputed matter of record. FPL counters that Elmore and LS & F were required to prove the filing date because it is a necessary element of the statute of limitations affirmative defense. Essentially, the issue in this case is whether a party is required to submit evidence of the date a claim is filed in order to survive a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Schwab v. State
...Stat. (2006). Taking judicial notice of such matters is purely a matter of judicial discretion. See id.; Elmore v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 895 So.2d 475, 478 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Under the unique circumstances of this case and based on the court's other ruling summarily denying relief, we h......
-
TD Bank, N.A. v. Graubard, 5D14–1505.
...“Every court will take judicial notice of its own records appearing in the case before it for consideration.”Elmore v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 895 So.2d 475, 478 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (quoting Tower Credit Corp. v. State, 183 So.2d 255, 256 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966) ). In contrast, when a party see......
-
TD Bank, N.A. v. Graubard
...court will take judicial notice of its own records appearing in the case before it for consideration." Elmore v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 895 So. 2d 475, 478 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (quoting Tower Credit Corp. v. State, 183 So. 2d 255, 256 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966)). In contrast, when a party seeks to......
-
TD Bank, N.A. v. Graubard
...court will take judicial notice of its own records appearing in the case before it for consideration." Elmore v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 895 So. 2d 475, 478 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (quoting Tower Credit Corp. v. State, 183 So. 2d 255, 256 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966)). In contrast, when a party seeks to......
-
Negligence cases
...278, 279 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019). §2:40.2 Statute of Limitations Four Years. Fla. Stat. §95.11(3)(a); Elmore v. Florida Power & Light Co. , 895 So.2d 475, 478 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). §2:40.3 References 1. 38 Fla. Jur. 2d Negligence §§15–33, 149–160 (2005). 2. 57A Am. Jur. 2d Negligence §§71–131 (2......
-
Alternatives to physical and testimonial proof
...has the ability to take judicial notice of all records in the case before it for consideration. Elmore v. Florida Power & Light Co. , 895 So.2d 475 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Johnson v. Johnson Hillsborough County Circuit Court was able to take judicial notice of records of Pasco County courts in......