Francois v. Univ. of Miami
| Decision Date | 17 February 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 3D15–64.,3D15–64. |
| Citation | 185 So.3d 705 |
| Parties | Nelson FRANCOIS, etc., Appellant, v. UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI, a Florida Corporation, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
185 So.3d 705
Nelson FRANCOIS, etc., Appellant,
v.
UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI, a Florida Corporation, Appellee.
No. 3D15–64.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Feb. 17, 2016.
Loreen I. Kreizinger and Justine S. Anagnos, Ft. Lauderdale, for appellant.
Fowler White Burnett and Marc J. Schleier and Christopher E. Knight, for appellee.
Before SUAREZ, C.J., and ROTHENBERG and EMAS, JJ.
SUAREZ, C.J.
Appellant Nelson Francois, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Caroline Francois ("Francois") appeals the denial of his Motion for Relief from Judgment. We reverse.
This case follows our decision in University of Miami v. Francois, 76 So.3d 360 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)1 in which we determined that a settlement agreement Francois had entered into with defendants Angelica Martinez, R.N. ("Nurse Martinez") and Medical Staffing Network Holdings, Inc. ("Medical Staffing") had the effect of also releasing his claims against the University of Miami (the "University"). Id. at 366–67. Importantly, in that prior appeal we specifically stated:
Francois conceded that he did not plead or seek reformation of the Release and Settlement Agreement at the trial court level, nor does he contend on appeal that a reformation was effectuated when the trial court entered its final order following rehearing. See, e.g. Rucks v. Pushman, 541 So.2d 673 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). Thus we do not consider whether reformation could have been utilized to achieve a different result.
Id. at 363 n. 2.
Following that opinion, Francois filed a separate action in the trial court captioned Francois as Personal Representative v. Martinez, 12–26993 CA 01. In that proceeding, an Agreed Final Order was entered which reformed the release to reflect Francois', Nurse Martinez's and Medical Staffing's actual intent, which was to settle Francois' claim against Nurse Martinez and Medical Staffing and to except the claims against the University from the scope of the release.
Thereafter, Francois filed his Motion for Relief from Judgment in this case, which the University opposed. After hearing, the trial court entered an order denying the Motion for Relief from Judgment. In that Order, the trial court found that:
[T]he Third District determined that [Francois]'s cause of action against the University of Miami was extinguished by the clear an unambiguous terms of the Release and Settlement Agreement .... In doing so, the Third District held that it was improper for this Court to consider parole evidence in an attempt to discern an intent which was already clearly expressed by the terms of the Release and Settlement Agreement. The Third District's ruling constitutes the ‘law of the case’ and must be followed.
This ruling was in error. As in Banks v. Orlando Regional Healthcare, 955 So.2d 604 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007), the trial court in the independent reformation action, Francois v. Martinez, supra, "successfully reformed the original release to reflect the parties' intent not to release subsequent tortfeasors or transfer any causes of action against subsequent tortfeasors. That reformation related back to the date of the original release." Banks, 955 So.2d at 608. The trial court's refusal to consider parole evidence was also error. See, Abernethy v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins., 717 So.2d 196, 198 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) and cases cited therein.
The trial court's conclusion that this Court's prior ruling precluded consideration of the reformed settlement agreement based on the law of the case doctrine was also incorrect. As indicated above, this Court expressly did not consider what
impact a claim of reformation would have on the release at issue. Consequently, the mandate did not include any ruling on that question and Francois was free to pursue the remedy of an independent action for reformation of the release.
As explained in Florida Dept....
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Maxwell v. State, 4D15–1274.
-
State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Xirinachs, 3D16–2225
...appellate court as long as the facts on which such decision are based continue to be the facts of the case." Francois v. University of Miami, 185 So.3d 705, 708 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (citation omitted). As set forth in Xirinachs I, the insureds were not entitled to appraisal because they had "......