Summerville Development, Inc. v. Dorta-Duque

941 So. 2d 530, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 18591, 2006 WL 3210047
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedNovember 8, 2006
DocketNo. 3D05-1999
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 941 So. 2d 530 (Summerville Development, Inc. v. Dorta-Duque) 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
Summerville Development, Inc. v. Dorta-Duque, 941 So. 2d 530, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 18591, 2006 WL 3210047 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Summerville Development, Inc. and G.C. Homes, Inc. appeal the trial court’s order granting a new trial in the underlying breach of contract action. We affirm, finding no abuse of discretion in light of the improper comments made before the jury during the trial proceedings.

During the course of the trial, the attorney for G.C. Homes, a plaintiff below, made a number of improper comments in the presence of the jury. She also referred during closing arguments to settlement negotiations that occurred at the onset of trial. In the presence of the jury, Pedro Garcia-Carrillo, the founder of G.C. Homes, gave an impromptu outburst. The jury subsequently returned a verdict in G.C. Homes’ favor. The trial court ordered a new trial, finding that G.C. Homes’ attorney improperly had referred to events that occurred prior to trial. Additionally, the trial court heard post-trial testimony that the outburst by Garcia-Carrillo was orchestrated. This misconduct by trial counsel was discovered after the verdict was received.

We find no abuse of discretion in any of the trial court’s rulings. See Philip Morris, Inc. v. French, 897 So.2d 480, 490 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (citations omitted) (stating that the standard of review of an order granting a new trial is abuse of discretion). A new trial is warranted when comments affect the jury’s ability to judge the evidence fairly. See Davidoff v. Segert, 551 So.2d 1274, 1275 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). The nature of the improper comments made in this case were egregious and may have likely swayed the jury.

Accordingly, because we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm the trial court’s order granting a new trial and find all other arguments raised in this appeal to be meritless.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Linkous v. Linkous
941 So. 2d 530 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
941 So. 2d 530, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 18591, 2006 WL 3210047, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/summerville-development-inc-v-dorta-duque-fladistctapp-2006.