BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. v. UGO COLOMBO
This text of BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. v. UGO COLOMBO (BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. v. UGO COLOMBO) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed November 24, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D21-1909 Lower Tribunal No. 13-8545 ________________
Bank of America, N.A., Petitioner,
vs.
Ugo Colombo, et al., Respondents.
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, William Thomas, Judge.
Liebler, Gonzalez & Portuondo, and Alan M. Pierce and Frank P. Cuneo, for petitioner.
Crabtree & Auslander, LLC, and John G. Crabtree, Charles M. Auslander, Linda A. Wells, and Brian C. Tackenberg, for respondents.
Before HENDON, MILLER, and BOKOR, JJ.
HENDON, J.
Bank of America, N.A., seeks certiorari review of the trial court’s order granting Ugo Colombo (“Colombo”) leave to assert a claim for punitive
damages against Bank of America. We deny the petition.
The record before this Court reflects that the trial court complied with
the procedural requirements of section 768.72(1), Florida Statutes (2021).
Colombo proffered evidence in support of his claim for punitive damages
against Bank of America, and following a hearing, the trial court entered an
order finding that Colombo “proffered a reasonable evidentiary basis for a
jury to find by clear and convincing evidence that such damages are
warranted.” Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of certiorari and, in
doing so, conclude that the arguments raised by Bank of America lack merit.
See Event Depot Corp. v. Frank, 269 So. 3d 559, 561-63 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)
(recognizing that the scope of an appellate court’s certiorari review of an
order granting a motion for leave to add a claim for punitive damages is
limited to whether the trial court complied with the procedural requirements
of section 768.72, but certiorari review is not available to review the
sufficiency of the respondent’s evidentiary proffer); see also E.R. Truck &
Equip. Corp. v. Gomont, 300 So. 3d 1230, 1231 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020);
Sedgwick Claims Mgmt. Servs. v. Rodriguez, 299 So. 3d 477, 478-79 (Fla.
3d DCA 2020).
Petition denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. v. UGO COLOMBO, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bank-of-america-na-v-ugo-colombo-fladistctapp-2021.