Stephanos v. Paine, 98-3103.
| Decision Date | 24 February 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 98-3103.,98-3103. |
| Citation | 727 So.2d 1075 |
| Parties | Bleau STEPHANOS, Petitioner, v. Richard Charles PAINE, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Daniel M. Le Vay and Eric R. Hoecker of The Law Offices of Figueroa, Gonzalez & Hoecker, West Palm Beach, for petitioner.
Michael J. Burley, Tequesta, for respondent.
Contrary to the provisions of section 768.72, Florida Statutes (1997), the respondent filed a second amended complaint claiming punitive damages without first obtaining leave of court. When the petitioner moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to follow the statutory procedures, the trial court denied the motion, believing there was no need to go through the formality of an evidentiary hearing when the respondent had filed an affidavit supporting his claim. In this ruling, the 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 Simeon:
[i]n this case, the plaintiffs did not comply with the procedures of this section. We agree with Judge Peterson's dissent that to comply with the statute's requirements, a plaintiff must obtain leave from the trial court to amend the complaint before punitive damages may be asserted. At that point, the trial court must make a determination that there is a reasonable basis for the recovery of punitive damages. Simeon, 655 So.2d at 159 (Peterson, J., dissenting); see also Kraft General Foods, 635 So.2d at 110. It was inconsequential that the trial court in this case subsequently held a hearing on the motions to dismiss and to strike: any punitive damages claim alleged prior to a party asking for and receiving leave of the court must be dismissed or stricken. See id.
671 So.2d at 160. The petition for writ of certiorari is granted, and the order denying the motion to dismiss is quashed. The second amended complaint is dismissed with leave to move the court to amend the original complaint to assert a claim for punitive damages in accordance with the procedure of section 768.72.
To continue reading
Request your trial
- School Bd. of Martin County v. AS, 98-0816.
-
Hall v. Lexington Ins. Co.
...a reasonable basis for recovery of such damages. See Simeon, Inc. v. Cox, 671 So.2d 158, 160 (Fla.1996); see also Stephanos v. Paine, 727 So.2d 1075, 1076 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); WFTV, Inc. v. Hinn, 705 So.2d 1010, 1011 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). To comply with the requirements of the statute, a pla......
-
MUNROE REG. HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC. v. Estate of Gonzales, 5D01-2331.
...v. Silva, 712 So.2d 1148 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). See also Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 658 So.2d 518 (Fla.1995). Compare Stephanos v. Paine, 727 So.2d 1075 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (trial court departed from essential requirements of law by failing to dismiss amended complaint claiming punitive dam......
-
Delta Health Group, Inc. v. Jackson, 5D01-2078.
...Gonzales,795 So.2d 1133 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). See also, Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 658 So.2d 518 (Fla.1995). Compare Stephanos v. Paine, 727 So.2d 1075 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (trial court departed from essential requirements of law by failing to dismiss amended complaint claiming punitive dam......