Rafael E. Padierne, P.A. v. Amador

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rafael E. Padierne, P.A. v. Amador

635 So. 2d 980, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 3430, 1994 WL 123674

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 12, 1994

DocketNo. 92-2672

StatusPublished

This text of 635 So. 2d 980 (Rafael E. Padierne, P.A. v. Amador) 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.

Bluebook

Rafael E. Padierne, P.A. v. Amador, 635 So. 2d 980, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 3430, 1994 WL 123674 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We find no error in the points raised in the direct appeal and therefore affirm the judgment awarding compensatory damages for the malicious prosecution of a civil action by the appellants against the appellee. On the cross-appeal, however, we conclude that the trial judge erroneously refused to submit the issue of punitive damages to the jury. The record — as reflected by the jury verdict finding that the appellant had been guilty of either actual or legal malice in maintaining the lawsuit in question — fully supports such an award. See Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Hoey, 486 So.2d 1368 (Fla. 5th [981]*981DCA 1986), review denied, 494 So.2d 1151 (Fla.1986). The basis of the ruling below— that a showing of the defendant’s financial worth is a prerequisite to an award of punitive damages — is directly contrary to the applicable law, which is that such evidence is permissible, but not required. Bould v. Tou-chette, 349 So.2d 1181 (Fla.1977); Rinaldi v. Aaron, 314 So.2d 762 (Fla.1975). Accordingly, the cause is remanded for the sole purpose of determining the liability of the appellants for punitive damages.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

We find no error in the points raised in the direct appeal and therefore affirm the judgment awarding compensatory damages for the malicious prosecution of a civil action by the appellants against the appellee. On the cross-appeal, however, we conclude that the trial judge erroneously refused to submit the issue of punitive damages to the jury. The record — as reflected by the jury verdict finding that the appellant had been guilty of either actual or legal malice in maintaining the lawsuit in question — fully supports such an award. See Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Hoey, 486 So.2d 1368 (Fla. 5th [981]*981DCA 1986), review denied, 494 So.2d 1151 (Fla.1986). The basis of the ruling below— that a showing of the defendant’s financial worth is a prerequisite to an award of punitive damages — is directly contrary to the applicable law, which is that such evidence is permissible, but not required. Bould v. Tou-chette, 349 So.2d 1181 (Fla.1977); Rinaldi v. Aaron, 314 So.2d 762 (Fla.1975). Accordingly, the cause is remanded for the sole purpose of determining the liability of the appellants for punitive damages.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

635 So. 2d 980, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 3430, 1994 WL 123674, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rafael-e-padierne-pa-v-amador-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack