Sutter v. Hammond

545 So. 2d 497, 1989 WL 69101
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJune 28, 1989
Docket87-2755
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 545 So. 2d 497 (Sutter v. Hammond) 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
Sutter v. Hammond, 545 So. 2d 497, 1989 WL 69101 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Opinion

545 So.2d 497 (1989)

Robert SUTTER, Appellant,
v.
Sister Sheila HAMMOND, a Catholic Nun, by and through Barbara Hammond Sutter, Trustee, Barbara Hammond Sutter, Individually, and First National in Palm Beach, a Division of Southeast Bank, N.A., Appellees.

No. 87-2755.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 28, 1989.

*498 Charles A. Nugent, Jr., of Cone, Wagner, Nugent, Johnson, Roth and Romano, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

F. Gregory Barnhart of Montgomery, Searcy & Denney, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellee-Sister Sheila Hammond, Trustee.

Robert G. Post of Alex Hofrichter, P.A., Miami, for appellee-First Nat. in Palm Beach.

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal, the appellant contends that the punitive damage award of $4.5 million is clearly excessive in light of the evidence presented as to the appellant's financial status. Having reviewed the record submitted by the appellant, and the portions designated by the appellee with which appellant has provided the court, it is clear that an award of $4.5 million is greatly in excess of any measure of value of appellant's financial ability in this case. Punitive damages may not be assessed in an amount which will bankrupt or destroy the appellant. Arab Termite and Pest Control of Florida, Inc. v. Jenkins, 409 So.2d 1039 (Fla. 1982); Hockensmith v. Waxler, 524 So.2d 714 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988).

However, rather than ordering a new trial, it is appropriate to consider a remittitur. Since the trial court judge is much more familiar with this case than we are, we remand to the trial court to enter an appropriate amount of remittitur. If, after reviewing this case, the trial court determines that it is impossible to determine an appropriate amount of remittitur, then he is directed to order a new trial on the issue of punitive damages. See University Community Hospital v. Martin, 328 So.2d 858 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976).

ANSTEAD, GUNTHER and WARNER, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Florida Sunrise v. Tri-M Investments
942 So. 2d 421 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)
Wransky v. Dalfo
801 So. 2d 239 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)
Brooks v. Rios
707 So. 2d 374 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
545 So. 2d 497, 1989 WL 69101, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sutter-v-hammond-fladistctapp-1989.