Affidavit Outline by Florida Judge 2006

Published on February 2023 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 2 | Comments: 0 | Views: 7770
of 10
Download PDF   Embed   Report

Comments

Content

 

11 19 2

8

6: 1

 

FROM

Fa x

Coco

Pando

R e so so rt r t H o tte el

TO

4636454

PAGE:

 

1 OF

  1

HCBA HC BA BR BROW OWN N BAG BAG WITH WITH COUN COUNTY TY JUDG JUDGE E EL ELIZ IZAB ABET ETH H G RICE MARCH 7 2 6

Avoiding Avoidi ng Techn Technic ical al Mine Minefi fiel elds ds and and Overco Overcomin ming g Proced Procedur ural al Hurd Hurdle less in Draf Drafti ting ng Af Affi fida davi vits ts and and Obta Obtain inin ing g Defa Defaul ultt an and d Summ Summar ary y Fi Fina nall Ju Judg dgme ment ntss

Elizabeth G Rice Copyri Cop yright ght 6

 

11 19 2

8 6: 1

  M

FROM:

Fa x Coco Pando R e so so rrtt H o tte el

TO:

PAGE:

4636454

 

2 OF   1

OUTLINE 1

Motions. a

Moti Mo tion onss for for En Entr try y o f Defau Default lt Final Final Judgme Judgment. nt.

 1

County Coun ty Cour Courtt Case sess - Gove Govern rned ed by Fla. R Civ. P. 1.500(e Fi na l j ud gme n t s after de faul t m a y be e nte red by t he court at an y neces esssary ary to take an acc accou ount nt or to de dettermi rmine the amou amount nt o f time.... I f it is nec dama damage gess or to es esta tabl blis ish h th thee tr trut uth h o f an any y av aver erme ment nt by evi vide denc ncee or to make an invest investiga igatio tion n o f any othe otherr mat matter ter to enab able le the cou ourt rt to ent nteer ju judg dgme ment nt or to effectuate it, t he court may receive affidavits, ma ke references, or condu onducct hear heariings ngs as it deems nec neces essa sary ry and sha halll accor ord d a righ ghtt o f tr tria iall by jury t o th e parties whe n required by t he Consti tution or any sta tut utee . (empha (em phasis sis added) added)

( 2)

Small Claims Cases - Gove rne d by Sm Small all Clai Claims ms R. 7 170(b  After def defaul aultt is en ente tere red, d, th thee judge judge shal shalll rece receiv ivee ev evid iden ence ce es esta tabl blis ishi hing ng th thee d a m ag e s a n d e n t e r j u d dg g me me n t in accordance wi t h the evidence and the law. (empha (emphasis sis add added) ed)

b

 

Motion Moti onss for for Su Summ mmar ary y Fi Fina nall Judg Judgme ment nt..  1 Governe Gove rned d by Fla. R Civ.   1.510.

Affidavits   Support a

 

Defaul Def aultt and and Su Summa mmary ry Final Final Judg Judgme ments nts..

Affidavi Affi davits ts in Genera General. l. th

 1 Affidavit Dermed. We Webs bste terr s New New Wor orlld College Dict ictio iona nary ry (4 ed. ed. 1999) 99) defi fine ness an affi ffidavi davitt as a wr writ itte ten n statement made made on oa oath th be beffor oree a no nottary pub ubllic or other oth er person person author authorize ized d to admini administe sterr oat oaths. hs. (2) Properl Prop erly y Notar Notarize ized. d. As st ated in the definition above, the affiant mus ustt make ma ke an oat oath or affi affirm rmat atio ion n as t o the tr u utt h o f th thee facts st stat ated ed in th thee aff ffiida davi vitt. I f th thee oa oath th admi mini nist ster ered ed by a nota notary ry publ public ic,, th thee nota notary ry s ju jura ratt or cert certif ific icat atee o f administration o f is ad the the oath oath must must be in incl clud uded ed in th thee affi affida davi vitt in th thee co corr rrec ectt form. In re Sinc Sincla lair ir 191 B.R. 47 474 4 117.05 05(1 (13) 3)(a (a)) (2 (200 005 5). The notary notary s cert certif ific icat atee (B (Baankr. nkr. M.D. Fla. 1996). See See Fla. Stat. § 117. xecuttion (i.e., the the for oreego goin ing g ins nsttru rum men entt was ack ckno nowl wleedg dgeed o f acknowledgment o f execu befor oree me ) in lieu o f an oath oath rende renders rs the affida affidavit vit lega legall lly y in insu suffi ffici cien ent. t. See id at 475; 475; Fla. Stat. § 117.05 117.05(13 (13)(b)(20 )(b)(2005). 05). (3) Affiantt s Comp Affian Compet eten ency cy.. An affidavit mus ustt clearly sho how w t he affiant is co comp mpet eten entt to te test stif ify y to th thee matt matter erss st stat ated ed in th thee affi fida davi vitt. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1. 1.51 510 0 Author Author s Comm Co mmen entt - 1967 1967 [her [herei eina naft fter er  FRCP 1.51 1.510 0 Com Commen mentt ]; Elser

2

v

Law Of Offi fice cess   James

 

11 19 2

8

6: 1

  M

FROM

Fa x

Coco

Pando

R e so so rt r t H o tte el

TO

4636454

PAGE:

 

3 OF

  1

th

DCA A 1996). An affiant fails to sa tisfy this Russ P A 679 So. 2 d 3 09 (Fla. 5 DC c ompet enc y requi rement where affi ant merely states, wi t hou outt more, t ha t affiant has  personal  perso nal knowled knowledge. ge. Id.; see also Mont Montej ejo o Invests.   V v Green Cos. Cos. In Inc. c. o f Fla. 471 So 2d 158 (Fla. 3d DC DCA A 1 9 8 5 ) ( w h er e a f f i a n t m e r e l y s t a t e d h is t it le , t h haa t he was fa fami mili liar ar wi with th the facts st staated in the compl omplaaint, and th that at to the be best st o f his know knowle ledg dgee an and d be bell iiee f the facts were true and accurate, affi davit was legally insufficie nt as it fa ile d t o show show af affi firm rmat ativ ivel ely y th that at affi affian antt wa wass co comp mpet eten entt to testifY to matt matter erss se sett fo fort rth h th ther erei ein, n, was was no nott ba basse d on persona l knowledge, and did no nott set forth facts as wou oull d be admissible in xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx evidence); Iglesia v City o f Mi Miam amii Be Beac ach h 487 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 3d D C A 1986), rev. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 494 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 1986 1986))( add ddiition o f th thee phra phrase se that that th thee affi affian antt is 'personally denied 494 knowl kno wledg edgea eable ble'' wi with th resp respec ectt to th thee al alle lega gati tion onss o f th thee com ompl plai aint nt adds not othi hin ng, since it is not not a stat statem emeent o f fact, but but is it itse self lf a mere co conc nclu lussio ion n or op opiini nion on o f the affi affian antt ). An affiant should establi sh the factual basis for a f ffii a nt ' s compet enc e (i.e., age, bases o f affiant' affi ant'ss per person sonal al knowle knowledge dge o f th thee rele releva vant nt mat matters ters at is issu suee in th thee case, etc.). M Tanner   E Gonzalez, Flori Moti tion on Pr Prac acti tice ce (Fla. Ba Barr 2002 2002). ). Florida da Ci Civi vill Tria Triall Prepa Prepara rati tion on Mo

*

*Nour v. All State Pipe Supply Co., Co. , 487 So.2d 1204 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) *1

Affiant Affi ant s Pers Persona onall Knowl Knowled edge ge An affi (4) affida davi vitt th ther eref efor oree mu must st be base based d on an af affi fian ant' t'ss pers person onaal kno knowl wleedge. ge. The purp purpos osee o f th this is require requiremen mentt is to pr prev even entt th thee tr triial c ourt from re lyi ng o n he arsay as t he basis for its decision and to ensure there is an ad admi miss ssib ible le ev evid iden enti tiar ary y basi basiss for for th thee cl clai aim m or af affi fian ant' t'ss po posi siti tion on rath rather er th than an me mere re belief or conjecture. Flo Florida rida Dept Dept.. o f Fin. Se Serv rvs. s. v Associated In Indu dus. s. Ins. Co. Inc. 868 So. 2d st 600 (Fla. 1 DC A 2004 2004); ); 49 Fla. Jur Summar ary y Judg Judgme ment nt § 39 (2 (200 006) 6).. Acco Accord rdin ingl gly, y, Jur 2d Summ an af affi fian antt shou should ld st stat atee in deta detail il th thee fact factss showi showing ng affi affian antt has has pers person onal al know knowle ledg dge. e. Id. See th e.g. Hoyt v St. Lucie Coun County ty Bd. Bd. o f Cou County nty Comm Comm rs 705 So. 2 d 119 (Fla. 4 DC A 1998)(affida vit legally insufficient whe re it fails to refl ec t facts demonstrating how af affi fian antt woul would d poss posses esss pers person onal al know knowle ledg dgee o f t he ma tters at issue in case); Carter v th 1986)( )(af affi fida davi vitt lega legall lly y in insu suff ffic icie ient nt Cess Ce ssna na Fin. Corp. orp. 498 So. 2d 1319 (Fla. 4 DCA 1986 whe re affiant failed to set out a factual basis to suppor ortt c laim o f per person sonal al knowl knowledg edgee o f matt ma tter er at issu issuee in ca case se an and d fa faiile led d to ma make ke as asse sert rtio ions ns ba base sed d on pers person onal al know knowlled edge ge). ). affi affian ant' t'ss fai failure ure, howe howeve ver, r, to ex expr pres essl sly y st staate in th thee affi affida davi vitt th that at it is  bas  based ed on pers person onal al knowl knowledg edgee doe does not nece necess ssar aril ily y rende renderr th thee affi affida davi vitt defi defici cien ent. t. A cou court rt may fi find nd An

the the af affi fida davi vitt is le lega gall lly y suff suffic icie ient nt if it is cl clea earr fr from om the st staatement ntss se sett fo forrth th ther ereein th that at af affi fian antt has has pers person onal al know knowle ledg dgee o f the relevant ma t t e r at issue i n the case. See e.g. st DCA A *1 Myrick v St. Ca Cath ther erin inee Labo Labour uree Manor anor Inc. nc. 529 So. 2d 3 69 (Fla. 1 DC 19 1988 88)( )(aaff ffiidav davit coul ould be cons consiidere dered d where here it was clearl rly y ev eviide dent nt fr from om face o f affidavit that that defe defend ndan antt mere merely ly reco recoun unti ting ng ac acttions ons and conv conver ersa sati tion onss in whic which h she she was was invol nvolve ved) d);; th DCA A 19 1984 84)( )(af affi fida davi vitt suff suffic icie ient nt wher wheree it was was Wright v Yurko 446 So. 2 d 1162 (Fla. 5 DC cl cleear fro rom m state tem ments made made the there reiin that that they they were ba base sed d on af affi fian ant' t'ss own own kn know owle ledg dgee); DCA 199 995 5)( )(aaff ffiida dav vi t Alvarez v Florida Ins. Guar. As s  n Inc. 661 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 3d DCA suff suffiicient ient where affi ffiant st staated her her title as off officer an and d manage nager, r, stated she was fam familiar wi with th ce cert rtai ain n re rele leva vant nt proc proced edur ures es,, desc descri ribe bed d th thos osee pr proc oced edur ures es,, an and d st stat ated ed th that at copie opiess o f doc docum umen ents ts at atta tach ched ed to affi affida davi vitt were were tr true ue an and d co corr rrec ectt copie opies) s);; 49 Fla. Ju Jurr 2d Summary Judg Judgme ment nt § 39 (200 (2006) 6).. *1 burden is upon the movant to establish the absence of any genuine issue of fact and the entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

3

 

11 1// 19 19 //2 20 00 0 8 6 ::0 01

  M

FROM

Fa x Coco Pando R e so so rrtt H o tte el

TO

4636454

PAGE:

00 04 4

OF

010

(a) Affidavits b a se d on i n f o n n a t i o n an d belief and to t he b e s t o f knowled know ledge ge are are le legal gally ly insu insuff ffic icie ient nt.. See See Th Thom omps pson on v Citizens Nat Nat l Ba Bank nk o f   *1 Leesburg 433 So. 2 d 32 (Fla. 5 DCA 1983 1983); ); P   T Elec. Elec. Co v Spadea 227 227 So.   *1 2 d 234 (Fla. 4 DC A 1969), writ disch discharg arged ed 235 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 1970); Tarkoff v Schmunk 117 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 2d D C A 1960); see also Hayn Hayn v Frederick 66 Hahn *2 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 1953). Bu t see Firs Firstt Nat l Enter Enterta tain inme ment nt Corp. v Brumlik 531 So. 2d 403, 405 (Fla. 5  DC DCA A 1 9 8 8 ) (s u mm a r y j u udg dgm m ent ent affidavit ba basse d on  infonn  inf onnati ation on an and d belief suff suffic icie ient nt wher wheree body body o f affi affida davi vitt in indi dica cate ted d affi affian antt had had person per sonal al knowle knowledge dge o f facts and ci circ rcum umst staances nces surr surrou ound ndin ing g basi basiss o f plaintiff s claim). (b) ffidav avit it wh whic ich h show showss co conc ncllus usiive velly on its face th that at the aff ffiiant  n affid could uld not not poss posseess pers person onaal know knowle ledg dgee o f th thee ma mattters ters st stat ated ed th ther erei ein n li like kewi wise se is legall leg ally y defic deficien ient. t. Avatar Pr Prop ops. s. Inc v Boney 494 So. 2 d 289 (Fla. 2 d D C A 198 986) 6)((affi ffidav davit legal gally insuf nsuffficient to de defe feaat su summ mmar ary y ju judg dgme ment nt whe where aff ffiiant cl clea earl rly y in inca capa pabl blee o f havi having ng pers person onaal kn know owle ledg dgee o f facts at issue i n case);   Thompson v Citizens Nat Nat l Bank Bank o f Leesburg 433 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 5 DC A 1983)(af 1983 )(affida fidavit vit fil filed ed by liquidator o f FDI DIC C in case inv nvol olvi ving ng no notte ob obttaine ned d fro rom m FDIC s pred predec eces esso sorr in in inte tere rest st was was le lega gall lly y in insu suff ffic icie ient nt wher wheree aff affia iant nt s alle allega gati tion onss as to th thee hi hist stor ory y o f th thee lo loan an tr tran ansa sact ctio ion n an and d th thee rele releva vant nt busi busine ness ss reco record rdss co coul uld d not have b e e n made o n t he basis o f pers person onal al know knowle ledg dge) e);; 49 Fla. Ju Jurr 2d Summary Judg Judgme ment nt § 39 (200 (2006) 6).. Wms v.Henderson, 779 So.2d 450 (Fla 2 2000), First Mortg.Investors v.Blvd.Nat.Bank of Miami,327 So.2d 830(Fla 3 1976)

( c) Note: Al though affidavits mu st se t forth facts wh i c h wo u l d be admi dmissible in evi vide denc ncee, this his does not not mean mean th that at the affi fid davit it itse self lf is admissible. Fla. Fla. Ju Jur. r.   dSu Summ mmar ary y Judgm Judgment ent § 39. 39. Ex parte affi affida davi vits ts actu actual ally ly are are hear hearsa say. y.

Walden

(5) Affi fida davi vits ts shou should ld se sett fo fort rth h Must Be Based on dmissible Evidence Af facts whic which h woul would d be admi dmissible at trial. Humphrys v Jarrell 104 So. 2 d 404 (Fla. 2d   DCA 1958 1958); ); se seee Ward Warden en v Cha Chase se Manhat Manhattan tan Bank Bank USA N.A. 872 So. 2 d 432 (Fla. 4 D C A 2004). Allegations i n an affidavit t h aatt set forth in co mp et e nt an d inadmissible matter, such such as hea hearsa rsay or opin opinio ion n te tesstimony ony, th that at woul would d be ina nadm dmiissi sib ble at trial, sh shou oulld

*1

be disreg disregard arded ed by th thee tr tria iall court. Id at 409; see also Palm Palmer er v Liberty Nat l Lif Lifee Ins. st Co., 499 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 1 DCA 198 1986), 6), rev denied 499 So. 2 d 903 (Fla. 1987) ( If evidence prese nt ed t o the t ri al j u d g e as a p a r t o f hi hiss co cons nsid ider erat atio ion n o f a mo t i o n f o r summ summar ary y judgme judgment nt is in inco comp mpet eten entt an and d woul would d be in inad admi miss ssib ible le duri during ng trial ial, th that at ev evid iden ence ce shoul d no nott be considered i n ruling on the mot ion. ); ); Ham v Heintzelman s Ford Ford In Inc. c.   256 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 4 DC A 1972 1972)( )( affi affida davi vitt pr pred edic icat ated ed on in inad admi miss ssib ible le hear hearsa say y does does not not co comp mply ly wi with th the summ summar ary y ju judgm dgmen entt rul rule an and d cann cannot ot be ut util iliz ized ed eith either er in supp suppor ortt o f or in oppo opposi siti tion on to sum summa mary ry ju judgm dgmen entt ). (6)   ffid ffida avits its Based on Ultimate Facts Lega egally Insufficien ient Affidavits ma y no nott be bas base d on allegations o f ulti ultimate mate fact facts. s. Dean v Gold Coast Coast Thea Theatr tres es Inc. Inc. 156 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 2d D C A 1963)( S ttaatement s o f ultimate facts in an affidavit in support of a motio otion n fo forr sum summary mary decre reee are o f no weig weight ht.. ). Fo Forr ex exaamp mple le,, th thee st stat atem emen entt  a t no ti me did affi ant have any knowledge o f th thee alle allege ged d fr frau audu dule lent nt circ circum umst stan ance cess se sett

*2 The plaintiff payee,as movant for summary judgment, had the burden not only to affirm with evidence all material facts necessary to support his complaint, but also evidence 4 sufficient to negative or disprove the maker's affirmative defense.

 

11 19 2

8

6: 1

  M

FROM:

Fa x

Coco

Pando

R e so so rt r t H o tte el

TO:

4636454

PAGE:

 

5 OF

  1

forth in plai plaint ntif iff' f'ss comp mpllain aint would be a sta statement o f ul ulti tima mate te fa fact ct as it pro rov vides no detail as to how how affi affian antt lacke acked d kn know owle ledg dgee o f th thee al alle lege ged d matter tter.. See id at 549; Jones *1 Constr. Co o f Cent Central ral Flo Florid rida a Inc Inc.. v Flori Florida da Wor Workers kers Camp Camp.. JUA JUA Inc Inc.. 793 So 2d 978, 979-80 (Fla. 2d D C CA A 2001)(affidavit th at states only that affiant has personal knowledge of the facts, that that the the alleg llegat atiions ons in th thee co comp mpla lain intt are true true and corre rrect, an and d th that at de defe fend ndan antt ow owes es plai plainti ntiff ff 3, 3,67 671, 1,31 312 2 is lega legall lly y in insu suff ffic icie ient nt as af affi fida davi vitt fa faiile led d to se sett fo fort rth h any ev evid iden enttiary iary facts that that wo woul uld d be admi admiss ssib ible le in ev eviide den nce ce). ). More Moreov over er,, an af affi fida davi vitt th that at amounts to no noth thin ing g mo more re than than a st stat atem emen entt by affi affian antt th that at th thee al alle leg gat atio ions ns in th thee co comp mpla lain intt are true true simi simila larl rly y is insufficient. See See xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Ig Igle lesi sia a v City o f Mi Miam amii Be Beac ach h 487 So 2d 1205 xxxxxxxxxxxxxx * (F (Flla. 3d DCA DCA 1986). *Nour v. All State Pipe Supply Co., Co. , 487 So.2d 1204 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)

(7) Affidavits Based on Conclusions   Law Legally Insufficient Affi ffidavit avitss likewi kewise se may may not not be base based d on conc concllus usiion onss o f law. Hurricane Boats Boats IInc nc.. v *1 Certified In Indu dus. s. Fabricat Fabricators ors Inc. 246 So 2d 174 (Fla. 3 d DCA 1974); Deer Deerfiel field d Beach   an kv Nager 14 140 0 So 2d 120 (Fla. 2d DC DCA A 1962). (8) Docu Do cum ment ent Supplyi lying Basis for Knowled ledge Must be Att Attached and When a document supplies the basis for an af fiant's personal Authenticated know knowle ledg dge, e, the the affi affian antt mu must st atta attach ch the the docu docume ment nt to th thee af affi fida dav vit. it. Fla. R Civ. P 1.51O(e); see e.g. CS X Transp. Inc. v Pasco Coun County ty 660 So 2d 757 (Fla. 2d DCA DCA 1995)(c (co ourt *1 re rev ver erse sed d sum summa mary ry judg judgme ment nt where witness ba base sed d sta statements on reports, but fa faiiled to attach reports to affidavit); Zoda v Hedden 596 So 2d 1225 (Fla. 2d D C A *1 19 1992 92)(a )(att ttor orne ney y no nott com compet petent ent to tes testif tify y in affi affida davi vitt as to proper property ty tran transa sact ctio ions ns reflec reflecte ted d in settlements, deeds, and judg judgme men nts contained in public records, since attorney was no nott custodian of publ public ic reco record rds, s, and cons conseq equ uen entl tly, y, was una nab ble to aut uth hen enttic icaate do docu cume ment ntss re refe ferr rred ed to in his affi affid dav aviit); t); Topping v Hot Hotel el Geor George ge V 268 So 2d 388 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)( 197 2)(att attorn orneys eys'' affi affida davi vitt st stat atin ing g he was fam amiilia iarr wi with th cl clie ient nt's 's records an and d the record rdss reflecte refl ected d cer certai tain n info informat rmation ion con consti stitut tuted ed ina inadmi dmissi ssible ble hearsa hearsay); y); Rowland v Wolf 192 So 2d 47,   9 (Fla. 3d D C CA A 1966) ( c o u r t r e j e c t e d P l a i n t i f f ' s a f f i da v it t h a t d e f e n d a n t ac ack kno now wled edg ged debt in writing where Plain lainti tiff ff failed to attach letters from defe fen n d a nt ) ; st Crosby v Pa Paxo xon n Elec. Co. 534 So 2d 787 (Fla. 1 DCA 1988), appe appeal al afte afterr re rema mand nd 576 So 2d 906 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). I f the the af affi fian antt lac ack ks po poss sses essi sion on o f a copy of the docu docume ment nt,, affi affian antt mu must st st stat atee so in the the affi affida davi vitt an and d de desc scri ribe be th thee do docu cume ment nt,, st stat atee when when an and d wher wh eree affi affian antt sa saw w   and and unde underr wh what at circ circum umst stan ance ces, s, who who ha hass po poss sses essi sion on,, an and d what what ef effo fort rtss have been made to obtain it or a copy of it FRCP 1.5 1.510 10 Comment Comment.. (9) Thee ad admi missi ssion on and co consi nside derat ratio ion n o f an So Soun und d Discreti Discretion on   Tria Triall Cour Courtt Th affi affid dav aviit is a ma matt tter er wi with thin in the the soun sound d disc discre reti tion on o f th thee trial rial court. Scott v NCNB Nat l   an ko fFla. 489 So 2d 22 221, 1,22 223 3 (Fla. 2d DC DCA A 1986).

5

 

11 1// 19 19 //2 20 00 0 8 6 ::0 01

b

  M

FROM

Fa x Coco Pando R e so so rrtt H o tte el

TO

4636454

PAGE:

00 6 OF 010

Affida Aff idavit vit in  Proof o f Claim /Support o f Mo Moti tion on - Sele Select cted ed Is Issu sues es..

Documentary Eviden Evidence ce Whe When n ap appr prop opri riat ate, e, a client client's 's affi affida davi vitt shou should ld be used t o provide an evidentiary foundati on for t he pri mary support ing doc ume ntary evidence o f a party party's 's claim. M Tanner   E Gonzalez, Flo Florid rida a Ci Civil vil Tria Triall Prep Prepar arati ation on Moti Mo tion on Practice (Fla. Bar Bar 2002). In prov provin ing g a claim, there here are two two layers o f documentary evidence.   d The fi firs rstt la laye yerr consi onsist stss o f docu ocuments th that at sup uppo porrt the facts state ated in the moti mo tion on fo forr re reli lief ef or, in com omee in inst stan ance ces, s, th thee compl omplaain int. t. See id Th Thee se seco cond nd laye layerr co cons nsis ists ts o f the the aff ffiidavi davits ts or ot othe herr docu docume ment ntss th that at supp suppor ortt th thee ad admi miss ssib ibil ilit ity y o f the fir firstst-lay layer er or pr prim imar ary y supp suppor orti ting ng doc docum umeents. nts.   d I f a n e v i d e n t i a r y f o u n d a t i o n f or t h e p r i m a r y docu docume ment ntar ary y ev evid iden ence ce is necessary, bu t n ot prope rly laid, th e pri mary support ing do doccum umen enttary evide videnc ncee is inadm nadmiissi sibl blee and it woul would d be er erro rorr fo forr th thee cou ourt rt to consi onside derr it in support of the the party party's 's moti motion on or requ reques estt for rel relief. Id Id.; .; Nichols Nichols v Preiser 849 So. 2d 478 *3 (Fla. 2d DC A 2003 2003)( )(tr tria iall co cour urtt unab unable le to prop proper erly ly co cons nsid ider er atto attorne rneys ys'' docu docume ment ntss in lega legall malpr ma lprac acti tice ce ac actio tion n where where doc docume uments nts had not been been proper properly ly auth authen enti tica cate ted). d).  I)

(2)   usin usines esss Reco Record rdss To be admissible, a business record pursuan t to sectio sec tion n 90.80 90.803(6 3(6), ), Flo Florid ridaa St Stat atut utes es,, must must::

** See Yisrael v. State, No. SC06-2211 (Fla. 7/10/2008) (Fla., 2008) ( a) be made at o r ne a r t he time o f an act, ev eveent nt,, con ondi dittio ion, n, opi opinion nion,, or dia diagnos gnosiis (i.e., en entr try y ma made de co cont ntem empo pora rane neou ouss wi with th act, ev even ent, t, co cond ndit itio ion, n, opin opinio ion, n, or diagnos diagnosis) is),, ( b) c onta in information suppl ied by or tr tran ansm smit itte ted d by a p erso n with know knowle ledg dgee ac acti ting ng with within in th thee co cour urse se o f a regula regularly rly conduc conducted ted busin business ess acti activi vity ty,, (c) be k e pt i n th t h e course o f a regula regularly rly conduc conducted ted busin business ess acti activi vity ty,, ( d) be t he ty pe o f do cume nt t he business regul arly makes w h een n en enga gagi ging ng in its part partic icul ular ar busi busine ness ss ac acti tivi vity ty;; an and d (e) be s h o w n by the testim testimony ony o f th thee cu cust stod odia ian n o f the r ec ec or d or ot her ** qualified witness wh o has the ne ce ssa ry knowledge to testifY as t o h o w a part partic icul ular ar docu docume ment nt was was made made or by a ce cert rtifi ifica cati tion on or declar declarati ation on wi with th appro appropri priat atee notice o f aff affian iant's t's in inte tent nt to rely rely on such such ce cert rtif ific icat atio ion n or decl declar arat atio ion. n. ** Mastan Co.v.American Custom Homes,Inc.,214 So.2d 103(Fla 2d DCA 1968) If a pa part rty y has fa faiiled to lay the prop proper er fo foun unda dattio ion n fo forr a bus usiine nesss re reco cord rd's 's admissi sibi billity, a

witness ma y n o t testifY as t o the contents o f th thee reco record rd.. See Fla. Stat. § 90. 803( 803(6) 6);; th Thompson v State 705 So. 2d 1046, 1048 (Fla. 4 DCA 1998 1998); ); Brown v State 537 537 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 3d DC A 1989); Cullimore v Bar Barnet nettt Bank   Jacksonville 3 86 So. 2 d 894, st 895 (Fla. 1 DC A 1980). See See also also I Fl Fla. a. Pr Prac ac.. Evidence § 80 803. 3.6 6 (2 (20 005 ed. d.)) Comput Com puter er Re Reco cord rdss * Like business records, compute r printouts are (3) admissible if the cust custod odia ian n or othe otherr qua qualifi fieed wi wittness is available to te st i fy as to the manner o f pre prepar parat ation ion,, reli reliab abil ilit ity, y, and tru trustw stwort orthin hines esss o f th thee in info form rmat atio ion n in th thee pr priint ntou out. t. DCA A 1978); see LEA LE A Ind Indus. nc v Rael Raelyn yn Int Int l In Inc. c. 363 So. 2d 49, 52 (Fla. 3d DC Specialty Linings Linings Inc. Inc. v B.F. B.F. Goodr Goodrich ich Co. Co. 532 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 2d DCA DCA 1988). *3 See, Daeda v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Florida, Inc., 698 So.2d 617 (Fla.App. 2 Dist., 1997), and Bifulco v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 693 So.2d 707 (Fla.App. 4 Dist., 1997) COMPUTER RECORDS - See, Gray v. State, 910 So.2d 867 (Fla 1st DCA 2005) Pickrell v. State, 301 So.2d 473 (Fla 2d DCA 1974) Jackson v. State, 877 So.2d 816 (Fla 4th DCA 2004) (MORE ON NEXT PAGE) 6

 

11 1// 19 19 //2 20 00 0 8 6 ::0 01

  M

FROM:

Fa x Coco Pando R e so so rrtt H o tte el

TO:

4636454

PAGE:

00 7 OF 010

Affidavits   Party s At Attor torne neys. ys.  n at tto (4) o r n e y s h o u l d a v oi d g i v viing an af affid fidav avit it in su suppo pport rt o f th thee clai claim m o f th thee atto attorn rney ey s cl clie ient nt (e (exc xcep eptt o f course as to att attorn orneys eys fees). In Hardemon v Fish 325 So. 2 d 411 (Fla. 3 d D C A 1976), th e court rul eed d it w a s inappropriate for counsel t o give an affidavit i n s u ppo rt o f his c l i e nt s m oti on for su summ mmar ary y ju judg dgme ment nt be beca caus usee do doin ing g so was in co cont ntra rave vent ntio ion n to Canon 5 E C 5-9, DR 5- 102, Co Code de o f Profess ional Responsibility, and other legal precedent. 325 So. 2 d 411, citing citing Millican Millican v Hunter 73 So. 2 d 58 (Fla. 1954); Hubbard v Hubbard 233 So. 2d 150 t (Fla. 4 DC A 1970). In reac reachi hing ng its dec ecis isiion, th thee Hardemon co cour urtt re reas ason oned ed that that th thee tr tria iall co ou ur t s h o u l d n o t h a ve c o on ns ide rreed c o ou un nss el el s affidavit because c o ou uns el w ou oul d n o ott have be been en pe perm rmit itte ted d to testifY at tr tria iall due to ethi ethica call pr proh ohib ibit itio ions ns (a (and nd henc hence, e, th thee af affi fida davi vitt fa fail iled ed to co cont ntai ain n ev evid iden ence ce that that wo woul uld d be admi admiss ssib ible le at tr tria ial) l).. Id. Id. at 150. Pre judgment judgment Intere Interest. st. Affid (5) Affidavi avits ts in proof o f c llaai m shoul d (and m us us t in Co unty Co ur t Divi si on J) contain at a mi n i m um a nd in m o s t circumstances a pre judgme jud gment nt inte intere rest st ca calc lcul ulat atio ion n se sett ttin ing g fo fort rth h th thee fo foll llow owin ing g in info form rmat atio ion: n:  I t h hee date from w hi hi ch ch and t h hrr o ou ug h w hi ch ch t h hee pa rt rt y is s ee k kiing interest; and (2) t h hee rate o f in inte tere rest st being being sought. In addition, it is advi advisa sabl blee tha thatt th thee pa part rty y se seek ekin ing g pr pree-ju judg dgme ment nt in inte tere rest st pr prov ovid idee th e c o u rt an interes t p e r di em t o as sist t he c ou rt in det ermining t he a m o un t o f pre judgme jud gment nt in inte tere rest st due to th thee date o f the j u ud dgm en ent . [Note: This Court has obs erved the preva prevalen lentt prac practic ticee o f pa part rtie iess fi fili ling ng se sepa para rate te af affi fida davi vits ts o f int intere erest. st. As pre-judgm pre-judgment ent in inte tere rest st is an aspe aspect ct o f a pa part rty y s cla claim im,, it woul would d se seem em th that at swor sworn n sta tate teme ment ntss re rega gard rdin ing g th thee calculation o f pr pree-ju judg dgme ment nt in inte tere rest st sh shou ould ld be in incl clud uded ed in th thee party party s af affi fida davi vitt in proof o f claim.] Affidavit o f No Nonn-Mi Mili lita tary ry Service. Pu Purs rsua uant nt to the the So Sold ldie iers rs and and Sa Sail ilor orss Civil Civil U.S.CA .CA.. App. App. § Relief Reli ef Ac Actt o f 1940, as ame amend nded ed (a/k1a the Serv Service iceme memb mber erss Civi Civill Relief Act) Act),, 50 U.S 501, et seq., a plai plaint ntif ifff must must file in bo both th fed eder eral al an and d stat statee cases (a) an af affi fid dav avit it se sett ttin ing g for orth th facts sh show owin ing g tha thatt th thee de defe fend ndan antt is no nott in th thee mi mili lita tarry serv rvic icee, or (b) an affid ffidav avit it set etti ting ng fo fort rth h th that at th thee defendant is in mi li litary s ervice or t h haa t th e p llaa in int if if f is unable to determine w h eett h hee r or no t the defendant is in su such ch se serv rvic ice, e, be befo fore re a jud judgme gment nt ba base sed d on th thee de defe fend ndan antt s defa defaul ultt ma may y be en enter tered ed.. c

d

Affidavit o f Att Attor orney neyss Fe Fees es and and Co Cost sts. s. I f a pa rrtt y is se seek ekin ing g att attorn orneys eys fe fees es and

co cossts pu purs rsua uant nt to a co cont ntrrac actt, stat tatute, te, or rule o f pr proc oced edur uree, th then en the at atto torn rney ey repr repres esen enti ting ng su such ch pa rt rt y mu st st file an affidavi t s etting forth, at a bare mi n nii mu mum, t h hee n u um m be be r o f ho hour urss ex expe pend nded ed an and d t he rate (o r flat fee) c ha rge d to th e cli ent in accordance w it h Flor Florid ida a Pat Patien ientt s Comp Compen ensa sati tion on Fund v Rowe 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985). Affidavit as to Reas Reason onab able le At Atto torn rney eyss Fees. The The pa part rty y se seek ekin ing g at atto torn rney eyss fee fees a l so m u uss t file an affidavit as to t h hee reas onabl en ene ss ss o f su such ch at atto torn rney eyss fees in ac acco cord rdan ance ce wi with th Flo lori rid da Pati Patien entt s Compe mpensati sation on Fund Fund v Rowe 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985), unless th e reasonableness o f su such ch fee pr prev evio ious usly ly ha hass be been en admi admitt tted ed by th thee op oppo posi sing ng par arty ty.. e

Computer Records - U.S. v. Catabran, 836 F.2d 453 (C.A.9 (Cal.), 1988)

7

 

11 1// 19 19 //2 20 00 0 8 6 ::0 01

3.

  M

FROM:

Fa x Coco Pando R e so so rrtt H o tte el

TO:

4636454

PAGE:

00 08 8

OF

010

Pleading/ProofRequirements g/ProofRequirements for Finall Judg Judgment ments. s. A d d i t i o n a l Pleadin fo r Entry o f Default Fina a

Documentary Documen tary Evidence Evidence o f Cl Clai aim m - EGR EGR Req Requi uire reme ment nts. s.

In most circumstances, the court will require the following documents be attached to the affidavit in p r o o f of claim, unless such do docu cume ment ntss were were previo previous usly ly attac attache hed d to plaintif plaintifff s co comp mplai laint/ nt/sta statem temen entt of claim: a) copy o f the last credit card statement actually sent to defendant; b) copy of ca card rd memb member er agre agreeemen ment, to pro prove enti entitl tlem emen entt to prepre-ju judg dgme ment nt in inte tere rest st in exc xceess o f stat statut utor ory y ra rate te and and att attorn orneys eys fees; fees; c) i f some doub doubtt or unce uncert rtai aint nty y exists ists rega regard rdin ing g pl plai aint ntif ifff s stan standi ding ng to bring an action on the debt as an as assi sign gnee ee,, th then en th thee as assi sign gnme ment nt o f the debt or bill of sale ofthe account.  l

Credit Card Cases.

  2) Pro Pro mis misss o orr y Note Cases. In most circumstances, the court will require the origin ori ginal al no note te be atta tacched to the affid fidavit in proo prooff of clai claim, m, unle unless ss pr prev evio ious usly ly atta attach ched ed to plaintiff s complaint/ complaint/state statement ment o f claim.   3) 3) A u t o m o b i l e Loan Deficiency Cases. The court may require the following documents be attached to the affidavit in pr proo ooff o f clai claim, m, unle unless ss pr prev evio ious usly ly attac attache hed d to plaintif plaintifff s co comp mplai laint/ nt/sta statem temen entt o f claim: a) a copy o f th thee se sect ctio ion n 679. 679.61 611, 1, Flor Florid idaa Stat Statut utes es,, noti notifi fica cati tion on of disposition to defendant; b) a copy o f th thee se secctio tion 679.61 679 .616, 6, Florida Florida Statut Statutes, es, explana explanation tion o f calculation o f defic deficienc iency y to de defen fenda dant. nt.   4) S ub ub ro ro g a ttii on on Cases. The court may require the following documents be attached t o the affidavit in p r o oo o f o f claim, unless pre rev vio iou usly sly atta ttached to pl plai aint ntif ifff s complaint/statement o f claim: a) evidence o f dama damage gess i. i.e. e.,, es esti tima mate te fo forr repa repair ir,, phot photos os,, etc. etc.); ); b) ev evid iden ence ce of paym paymen entt i.e i.e., canc cancel eled ed check eck, etc.). [Note: In su subr brog ogat atio ion n cases in whic wh ich h the the insu insure red/ d/su subr brog ogor or has not not been been jo join ined ed as a pl plai aint ntif iff, f, th thee in insu sure rer/ r/su subr brog ogee ee may may not seek the recovery o f the in insu sure red d s deductib ible le as an element of dama damage ge ag agai ains nstt defenda defe ndant. nt. ] At Atto torn rney eyss Fee Fees Cons Consti titu tute te Unli Unliqu quid idat ated ed Dama Damage gess - Hear Hearin ing g Lega Legall lly y Req Requi uire red. d. attorn rney eyss fee fees cons consti titu tute te unli unliqu quid idat ated ed dama amages, a de defa faul ulte ted d par arty ty has a due pr proc oceess righ rightt to As atto noti notice ce and an oppo opport rtun unit ity y to be he hear ard d on th thee issue as to the reaso reasona nable blene ness ss o f th thee amou amount nt o f fees st so soug ught ht to be aw awar arde ded d agai agains nstt th thee defa defaul ulte ted d par arty ty.. Asian Impo Import rtss In Incc 633 So 2d 55 Fla. 1 DCA DC A 1994) 994);; Scott v Revels Inc 491 491 So 2d 1230 Fla. 2d DC A 1986); Bowman v Kingsland th Dev Inc 432 So. 2d 660 Fla. 5 DCA 19 1983 83); ); Fla R Civ 1.440 c) c). In Ind deed, eed, it is reversible er erro rorr for for a court urt to awar award d at atto torn rney eyss fe fees agai agains nstt a defa defaul ulte ted d pa part rty y abse absent nt re reas ason onab able le not otic icee and and a hearin aring g on the matter. See id In Sloan v Fre Freedo edom m Sa Savin vings gs   Loan Assoc Associat iation ion 525 So.2d 1000 Fla. 5th DCA 1988), however, the court concluded a claim for damages, liquidated or unliquidated, including a claim for attorneys fees and costs, could be decided by summary judgment.   d at 1001. b

8

 

11 19 2

4

8 6: 1

 

FROM:

Fa x Coco Pando R e so so rrtt H o tte el

TO:

4636454

PAGE:

 

9 OF   1

Addition Addi tional al Pleading/Pr Pleading/Proof oof Requiremen Requirements ts for Entry o f Summary Final Judgments. Judgments. a

Su Summ mmar ary y Judgme Judgment nt Affid Affidav avits its in Partic Particula ularr  1) 1)

Govern Gov erned ed by Fla R

iv P 1.510 e).

 2

FRCP 1.510 Comment In st r u ct i v e . The Author s Comment - 1967 to Rule   51 0 provides, among oth ther er things, th that at the fu fun nctio ion n o f th thee af affi fida davi vitt is to show there is available co comp mpet eteent te test stim imon ony y whic which h can be in intr tro oduced at trial. FRCP   51 0 Comment. The affid ffidav aviit theref refore should be in the form o f testi testimony mony admiss admissible ible at trial. Id In addition, the cour courtt may may disreg sregaard a sta state tem ment in an affid fidavit wh whic ich h phy hyssica ically lly is im impo poss ssib ible le in li ligh ghtt o f comm common on know knowle ledg dgee or scie scient ntif ific ic pr prin inci cipl ples es.. Id ci citi ting ng Watl Watley ey v Flori Florida da Power Power   Light Co 192 So 2d 27 Fla. I st DCA 19 1966 66). ).   3) D ea ead li lin n e f or or Ser Serv in ing g Affidavits. A party moving for summary ju dgment must file and serve supporting affidavits with the motion at least 20 days prior to the th hearing. Mack v Commerc Commercial ial Indu Induss Park Inc Inc 541 So 2d 800 Fla. 4 DC DCA A 1989); Marlar v Qu Quin incy cy Stat Statee Bank Bank 463 So 2d 1233; Coa Coasta stall Caribb Caribbean ean   orp v Rawlings 361 So 2d 719 Fla. 4th DC DCA A 1978). A mova movant nt may may file su supp pple leme ment ntal al af affi fid davit avitss les less th than an 20 days before the hearing, but only with the opposing pa part rty y s written stipulation and cons consen entt or upon leave o f court granted by writ writte ten n order after ter writ writte ten n applicatio tion, with ith noti noticce to the the opp opposin osing g part party, y, and and an opp opportu ortunity nity for he heari aring ng.. Marlar 463 So 2d at 1234; see also El Elli liss v Bar Barnet nettt Bank o f Lakeland 341 341 So 2d 545, 546 Fla. 2d DCA 1977). If *4 service o f the the summ summar ary y ju judg dgme ment nt moti motion on and and affid ffidav avit itss is achiev ieved by mail, il, th then en five days must be added to the notice period pursuant to Rule   090 e c Huffman *5 Trucking Inc v Ceda darr Corp 723 So.2d 296 Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Nelson v e Ce Balkany 620 So 2d 1138, 1139 Fla. 3d DCA 1993). The motion and affidavits ac acco cord rdin ingl gly y woul would d need need to be se serv rved ed no le less ss than 25 da days ys be befo fore re th thee he hear arin ing. g.  4 4)) Affi d av it s Contradicting Prior Te Test stim imon ony. y. Generally, an affiant may not not cont contra radi dict ct or re repu pudi diat atee af affia fiant nt s prio priorr depo deposi siti tion on test testim imon ony y so as to create an issue o f fact. Se Seee Brigue Briguera ra v Behr Paint Paint Corp Corp 712 So 2d 824 Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Ellison v Anderson 74 So 2d 680 Fla Fla. 1954). A court rt,, ho howe weve ver, r, may may cons consid ider er su such ch an affi affida davi vitt if affi affiaant has at atte temp mptted in the affid fidavit to excuse or expl plaain the discrepancy. Stanford v CSX Tr Tran ansp sp Inc 637 So 2d 37 Fla. 2d DCA 1994), rev denied 645 645 So 2d 451   Fla. 1994). b

Documen Docu mentar tary y Evid Eviden ence ce - EGR Requ Requir irem emen ents ts.. See 3.a .a.. Docume Documenta ntary ry Evide Evidenc nce) e) ab abov ove. e.

*4 Although appellant was furnished a copy of appellee's affidavit on the subject of fees, he was not obligated to dispute that affidavit since he received no indication that it would be considered by the trial court. *5 Plaintiff moving for summary judgment must either conclusively disprove any affirmative defense pleaded by the defendant, or demonstrate that the defense 9is legally insufficient.

 

11 19 2

8

6: 1

 

FROM:

Fa x

Coco

Pando

R e so so rt r t H o tte el

TO:

4636454

PAGE:

  1

OF

  1

Reguir Regu irem emen ents ts for for Ent ntry ry   Default Final Judgment After Breach in Settlement Stipula Stip ulation tion EGR Reguirem Reguirements ents

Affidavit of Default/Non-Compliance.   set settle tlemen mentt stipu stipula latio tions ns provid providing ing fo forr the the entry of a final judg judgme ment nt or for an orde rder all llo owin wing execu ecution ion on a final judg judgme ment nt (i.e., in the case fina nall judg judgme ment nt,, ex exec ecut utio ion n wi with thhe held ld)) on an  x p rt bas asis is,, wi with thou outt fu furt rthe herr no noti tice ce or he hear arin ing g to of a fi the other party, the party seeking the entry of the final judgment must file with the Court an  affidavit of def default ault or affidavit affidavit of non non-co -compl mplian iance ce se setti tting ng fo forth rth the the fo foll llow owin ing g as asse sert rtio ions ns of fact: (1) the date of th thee defa defaul ult, t, nonnon-pa paym ymen ent, t, or nonnon-co comp mpli lian ance ce;; (2 (2)) the the tota totall doll dollar ar am amou ount nt of pa paym ymen ents ts made made by the the defa defaul ulti ting ng pa part rty y as ofthe date of the the af affi fid davit avit;; (3) the the ma mann nner er in whic which h the the part party y se seek ekin ing g the the final ju judg dgme ment nt appl applie ied d th thee payme ayment ntss to the the outs outsta tand ndin ing g inde indebt bted edne ness ss;; and and (4) the outstanding balances due and owing for principal, pre-judgment interest, costs, and re reas ason onab able le at atto torn rney eys' s' fees fees,, and the the tota totall th thee amou amount nt for for whic which h judgme judgment nt is sought. a

Example: le: (Sti (Stipu pula lati tion on provi rovid des th that at upon upon defa fau ult, plai plaint ntif ifff may may se seek ek amou amount nt or orig igin inal ally ly so soug ught ht in the the st stat atem emen entt of claim/complaint).  Defendant failed to make the payment due on May 5 2005. Plai Plaint ntif ifff a tota totall of   300 unde underr th thee sett settle leme ment nt stip stipul ulat atio ion n as of the The 1,000 was applied first to costs and fees, then to interest, Plai Plaint ntif ifff acco accord rdin ingl gly y seek seekss th thee entr entry y of a final judgment in the principal, 400 in interest, 280 in costs, and 200 in reasonable tota totall sum due of   4,880.

Defendant has paid date of this this af affi fida davi vit. t. and last to principle. amount of  4,  4,0 000 in attorneys' fees, for a

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close