PETER F. GREEN AND LILLIAN GREEN, PETITIONERS,
v.
FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF FLORIDA, A NATIONAL BANKING ASSOCIATION, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida District Court of Appeal reviewed a trial court order that struck punitive damages claims and transferred the case to county court due to insufficient jurisdictional amount. The court held that the complaint adequately pleaded misrepresentation with willful disregard sufficient to support punitive damages and granted the writ of certiorari, remanding for reinstatement in circuit court.
A complaint that sounds in misrepresentation made with willful disregard for the plaintiff's rights can support a punitive damages claim at the pleading stage. The trial court erred in striking the punitive damages claim and transferring the case without notice or opportunity for the plaintiffs to be heard.
[1] A claim for punitive damages may be supported by allegations of misrepresentation made with willful disregard for a party's rights, even in the context of a transaction t…
[2] A trial court should not strike a claim for punitive damages at the pleading stage if the complaint alleges misrepresentation made with willful disregard for the plaintif…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“But the complaint appears to sound in misrepresentation made with wilful disregard for plain[tiffs'] rights and to that extent cannot be said at this pleadings stage to not support a punitive damages claim.”
Establishes that misrepresentation with willful disregard can support punitive damages at pleading stage, distinguishing from pure contract claims
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioners Green sought damages exceeding $5,000 against First National Bank of Florida for misrepresentation regarding mortgage financing for a real…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Sua Sponte Order cases and more on FLexlaw
LEHAN, Acting Chief Judge.
Plaintiffs bring a writ of certiorari to this court from the order of the trial court striking from the complaint a claim for punitive damages, striking an allegation that “defendant acted in wilful disregard or indifference of the rights of plaintiffs,” denying plaintiffs the opportunity to amend, and transferring the case to the county court by reason of an insufficient jurisdictional amount. The suit was for damages in excess of $5,000 growing out of defendant bank’s alleged misrepresentation that mortgage financing for plaintiffs as the purchasers under a real estate purchase contract would be provided by the bank in a certain amount and at a certain interest rate. The complaint alleged that shortly before the closing of the purchase the bank withdrew its financing commitment and substituted a commitment for a lesser amount at a higher interest rate. It was further alleged that alternate financing was available to plaintiffs in the amount and at the interest rate to which the bank had originally committed but that, due to the late withdrawal by the bank of its initial commitment, plaintiffs were unable to arrange for such alternate financing and were caused to suffer losses by closing the purchase with a purchase money mortgage which cost plaintiffs more than would have such alternate financing.
We have jurisdiction. See Tantillo v. Miliman, 87 So. 2d 413 (Fla.1956); Thibadeau v. Santini Bros., Inc., 315 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Mendoza v. Farrell, 199 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967); Rocco v. Coffey, 163 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964).
It appears that the order was entered sua sponte, without notice, and without an opportunity having been given to plaintiffs to present their position.
Respondent argues that the complaint pleaded a cause of action on contract and that punitive damages are not recoverable on a contract claim. See Taylor v. Kenco Chemical & Mfg. Corp., 465 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). But the complaint appears to sound in misrepresentation made with wilful disregard for plain tiffs’ rights and to that extent cannot be said at this pleadings stage to not support a punitive damages claim. See Walsh v. Alfidi, 448 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). There appears to be no basis for a finding that the claim for damages in excess of $5,000 was not made in good faith. See Stabinski v. Windjammer International Corp., 360 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Mendoza v. Farrell, supra. Having in mind also the lack of notice and hearing to plaintiffs, we grant the petition.
We remand for a transfer of the cause back to the circuit court for proceedings consistent herewith.
FRANK and HALL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Taylor v. Kenco Chem. & MFG. Corp. & Emerald Mfg. Co., Inc., 465 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Enrico Tantillo and Sylvia Tantillo v. Miliman, 87 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 1956)
- Theodora Walsh v. Alfidi, 448 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Thibadeau v. Santini Bros., Inc., 315 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Rocco v. Coffey, 163 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Mendoza v. John J. Farrell, M.D., 199 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Stabinski v. Windjammer Int'l Corp., 360 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)