Mayer v. Frank

Decision Date30 August 1995
Docket NumberNo. 95-1796,95-1796
Parties20 Fla. L. Weekly D1972 Frederick MAYER and Gloria Mayer, Petitioners, v. Richard FRANK and Brenda Frank, his Wife, Respondents.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

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 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 be scheduled within ninety days of the order denying the motion. Id. at 107-08.

In Kraft, this court held that a complaint that included a claim for punitive damages, where the plaintiff had not first sought and obtained leave of court to seek...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Cohen v. Office Depot
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • 17 Agosto 1999
    ...must be dismissed or stricken."). See also WFTV, Inc. v. Hinn, 705 So.2d 1010, 1011 (Fla. 5th Dist.Ct.App.1998); Mayer v. Frank, 659 So.2d 1254, 1255 (Fla. 4th Dist.Ct.App.1995). Thus, if 768.72 applies in this case, the district court correctly struck the request for punitive damages from ......
  • Horizons Rehabilitation, Inc. v. Health Care and Retirement Corp.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 4 Enero 2002
    ...XIV because it found that such claims are not permitted without prior trial court authorization, pursuant to § 768.72.5 Mayer v. Frank, 659 So.2d 1254 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). See also Sanchez v. Degoria, 733 So.2d 1103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Kraft General Foods, Inc. v. Rosenblum, 635 So.2d 106 ......
  • Stephanos v. Paine, 98-3103.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 24 Febrero 1999
    ...trial court departed from the essential requirements of law. See Simeon, Inc. v. Cox, 671 So.2d 158, 160 (Fla.1996); Mayer v. Frank, 659 So.2d 1254, 1255 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); see also WFTV, Inc. v. Hinn, 705 So.2d 1010, 1011 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). As the supreme court stated in [i]n this case......
  • Keller Industries, Inc. v. Kennedy, 95-3918
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 21 Febrero 1996
    ...determined that a factual basis for such damages exists as required by section 768.72, Florida Statutes (1993). See Mayer v. Frank, 659 So.2d 1254 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Oriole Homes Corp. v. Stevens, 638 So.2d 634 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Kraft Gen. Foods, Inc. v. Rosenblum, 635 So.2d 106 (Fla. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT