ORKIN EXTERMINATION COMPANY, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
MICHAEL LAZARUS, ET AL., APPELLEES
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.
Orkin Extermination appeals a judgment awarding the Lazarus family $190,458.57 in damages for bodily injuries, property damage, and punitive damages. The appellate court rejected Orkin's evidentiary challenges but remanded the case because the judgment failed to allocate specific amounts to minor children, which is necessary to determine if guardianship requirements under Florida law apply.
The judgment must be remanded to the trial court to allocate specific damage amounts to each plaintiff, including the minor children. A guardian ad litem must be appointed to represent the interests of any remaining minor children during an allocation hearing, and an amended final judgment must specify the separate damage awards for each child.
[1] A defendant has standing to challenge an undifferentiated judgment to ensure compliance with statutory requirements for judgments awarded to minors.
[2] A court must allocate a judgment to determine if the portion awarded to a minor exceeds $5,000, which triggers a requirement for a court-appointed guardian of the minor's…
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“if the amount of the judgment to the minor were in excess of $5,000, a court-appointed guardian of the minor's property is required to execute a satisfaction of the judgment”
Establishes the statutory basis for requiring judgment allocation to determine guardianship obligations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMichael and Alexa Lazarus and their minor sons, Brett and Scott, obtained a judgment against Orkin Extermination Company after a non-jury trial. The t…
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 Allocation Of Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
DANIEL S. PEARSON, Judge.
This is an appeal from a final judgment entered after a non-jury trial awarding damages to Michael and Alexa Lazarus and their minor sons, Brett and Scott Lazarus. The judgment, in the total amount of $190,-458.57, consists of $126,000 for bodily injuries, medical expenses, pain and suffering, mental anguish, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life; $54,458.57 for property damages; and $10,000 for punitive damages. The amounts set forth in the judgment are supported by competent and substantial evidence, and we therefore reject appellant’s claims to the contrary.
Counsel for the defendant argues, however, that a judgment in this undifferentiated form is improper and that it is not possible to determine from this judgment the specific amounts to which the individual plaintiffs are entitled. While a defendant qua defendant ordinarily would have no interest in the allocation of the judgment between the plaintiffs, and thus no standing to complain, if the amount of the judgment to the minor were in excess of $5,000, a court-appointed guardian of the minor’s property is required to execute a satisfaction of the judgment. See § 744.387(3) & (4), Fla.Stat. (1985).
Thus, for the purpose of determining if the judgment for the minor exceeds $5,000, the defendant correctly urged — even belatedly1 — that the judgment be allocated. Since the record reflects that some portion of the award for bodily injuries, pain and suffering, mental anguish, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life is attributable to the minor children, and that they are consequently entitled to some portion of the punitive damage award,2 the case is remanded to the trial court to appoint a guardian ad litem to represent the interests of any child who is still a minor, to thereafter conduct a hearing to determine the specific amount of the judgment to which such child is entitled, and to enter an amended final judgment reciting the separate damage awards for such child.3 See Florida Power & Light Co. v. Macias, 507 So. 2d 1113, 1117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (where parent seeks compensation for own injuries from same settlement fund that will provide compensation for child, guardian ad litem must be appointed to represent child in allocation proceeding).
Remanded.
. Counsel for the plaintiffs (parents) respond that this argument has been waived by the defendant's failure to raise it prior to its motion for rehearing below. However, we think the matter is one that can and must be entertained by the court at any time.
. It is clear from the record that the medical expenses incurred by the children were paid for by the parents and that the amount awarded for property damage was for property owned by the parents.
.If either child has attained his majority, he may request allocation of his portion of the judgment and participate in the allocation proceeding.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Berges v. Infinity Ins. Co., 896 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 2004)…review granted, 873 So. 2d 1223 (Fla.2004); Sullivan v. Dep’t of Transp., 595 So. 2d 219, 219 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (holding that no settlement of a minor’s claim exceeding $5000 is effective without court approval); Orkin Exterminating Co. v. Lazarus, 512 So. 2d 1120, 1121 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (noting that where a judgment to a minor exceeds $5000, only a court-appointed guardian may execute a satisfaction of judgment). Taylor had not yet become his daughter’s legal guardian for purposes of the settlement, and obv…
-
Burden v. Robert J. Dickman Ad Litem of Adam Paul Burden, 547 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…e question of allocating the $1,500,000 award, having initially recommended such action to the probate court, the matter of a judgment allocation “is one that can and must be entertained by the court at any time.” Orkin Extermination Co. v. Lazarus, 512 So. 2d 1120, 1121 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). In Orkin we held that a tort defendant was entitled to allocation of a judgment awarding undifferentiated damages to minor children and their parents even though the defendant failed to raise the issue timely. The caus…
-
Auerbach v. McKINNEY, 549 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…iction be and the same are hereby denied. “5. The matter of proper allocation of funds between a parent and a minor child is a matter which may be entertained by this Court at any time. See Orkin Extermination, Inc. v. Michael Lazarus, 12 FLW 2294 [512 So. 2d 1120] (Fla. 3d DCA, Case No. 87-256; opinion filed September 22, 1987). Where as here a parent sought compensation from the same settlement funds that would provide compensation for the minor, a guardian ad litem must be appointed to represent the child…
Authorities Cited
- Arcaute v. State, 507 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)