Lawson v. Latham, 89-2860
| Decision Date | 31 July 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-2860,89-2860 |
| Citation | 564 So.2d 1216 |
| Parties | 15 Fla. L. Weekly D1966 Donald LAWSON and Ronda Lawson, Appellants, v. Jeffrey LATHAM, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Kaufman Miller Dickstein Grunspan, P.A., and Raymond V. Miller, Miami, for appellants.
No appearance for appellee.
Before JORGENSON, GERSTEN and GODERICH, JJ.
Donald and Ronda Lawson appeal from a final judgment in which the trial court granted a motion for a directed verdict in favor of Jeffrey Latham. For the following reasons, we reverse and remand for a new trial on the issue of damages.
The Lawsons sued seven individual and corporate defendants on various causes of action, including fraud, conspiracy, and breach of contract. After protracted discovery violations by defendants, the trial court struck defendants' pleadings and entered a default against defendants on all claims asserted by the Lawsons. Jeffrey Latham, one of the defendants, appealed the order of default. This court affirmed. Latham v. Lawson, 526 So.2d 744 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). At the close of the jury trial on the issue of damages, 1 the trial court granted defendant Latham's motion for a directed verdict on the grounds that the Lawsons had made no showing that Latham's conduct was knowing, willful, or wanton. The trial court later clarified its ruling, stating that the Lawsons were entitled to neither compensatory nor punitive damages from Lawson on their fraud claim. 2
The trial court erred in directing a verdict for Latham. This court's affirmance of the order of default established Latham's liability on all claims asserted by the Lawsons. See American Fidelity Fire Ins. Co. v. Woody's Electric Serv., Inc., 407 So.2d 947 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (). "[Q]uestions of law which have been decided by the highest appellate court become the law of the case which, except in extraordinary circumstances, must be followed in subsequent proceedings, both in the lower and the appellate courts." Brunner Enter., Inc., v. Dept. of Revenue, 452 So.2d 550, 552 (Fla.1984). 3 Latham's liability for fraud had been established; the trial court was not free to revisit the issue. All that the Lawsons had to prove at trial was the amount of damages to which they were entitled. The quantum of damages that the Lawsons could recover for Latham's fraud was a question for the jury. 4 The trial court committed reversible error by removing that question from the jury's consideration.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial on damages as to defendant Latham.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moreno v. Allen
...and thus "the law of the [previous] case," Brunner Enters., Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 452 So.2d 550 (Fla.1984); Lawson v. Latham, 564 So.2d 1216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Flinn v. Shields, 545 So.2d 452 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), which carefully restricted the sums to be paid from the settlement sp......
-
DG Sports Agency, LLC v. First Round Mgmt., LLC, 4D14-862
...the default established liability and that liability established that the electrical company breached the contract. Lawson v. Latham, 564 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), is also instructive. In Lawson, although the trial court entered a default against a defendant, at trial it entered a dir......
-
DG Sports Agency, LLC v. First Round Mgmt., LLC
...the default established liability and that liability established that the electrical company breached the contract.Lawson v. Latham, 564 So.2d 1216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), is also instructive. In Lawson, although the trial court entered a default against a defendant, at trial it entered a direc......
-
Austral Lineas Aereas Cielos Del Sur v. Gimenez, 3D01-1334.
...denied, No. 02-461, 828 So.2d 386 (Fla. Sept. 23, 2002), the law of the case doctrine renders this issue moot. See Lawson v. Latham, 564 So.2d 1216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) ("[Q]uestions of law which have been decided by the highest appellate court become the law of the case which, except in extr......