HANS-JUERGEN STOEVER AND KARIN STOEVER, PETITIONERS,
v.
VEDDER HOMES, INC., ETC., ET AL., RESPONDENTS
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 Stoevers sought certiorari review of a trial court order denying their motion in limine to exclude evidence of their settlement with an extermination company in a construction defect lawsuit against Vedder Homes. The appellate court denied the petition, holding that the claimed irreparable harm from trial expenses and delay was insufficient to warrant certiorari review of the nonfinal order.
The court denied the petition, holding that certiorari review of a nonfinal order is available only if the order departs from the essential requirements of law, causes material injury throughout the remainder of proceedings, and leaves no adequate remedy on appeal. The Stoevers' claim of irreparable harm based merely on time and money expenditure for trial and subsequent appeal is insufficient to justify certiorari review.
[1] Certiorari review of a nonfinal order is appropriate only when the order constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law, causes material injury throughout…
[2] The expenditure of time and money on an unnecessary trial and subsequent appeal is generally insufficient to justify certiorari review.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Certiorari review of a nonfinal order is available only if the order is a departure from the essential requirements of law, causing material injury throughout the remainder of the proceedings, and effectively leaving no adequate remedy on appeal.”
Establishes the three-part test for certiorari review of nonfinal orders
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Stoevers contracted with Vedder Homes for construction of a new home completed in 1991. In 1994, they discovered extensive termite damage and noti…
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 Prejudicial Impact cases and more on FLexlaw
ANTOON, Judge.
Hans-Juergen Stoever and Karin Stoever petition this court for a writ of certiorari to review a nonfinal order entered by the trial court denying their motion in limine. We deny the petition.
The Stoevers contracted with Vedder Homes, Inc., for the construction of their new home. The home was completed in 1991. In 1994, they learned that the home had sustained extensive termite damage. The Stoevers notified Vedder, as well as the extermination company who had treated their home for termites, of the damage. The Stoevers reached a settlement with the extermination company, but were unable to settle with Vedder. Consequently, the Stoe-vers filed an action for damages against Ved-der. Prior to trial, the Stoevers moved for an order in limine excluding evidence of their settlement with the extermination company. Citing sections 46.015(3)1 and 768.041(3),2 Florida Statutes (1995), the motion in limine asserted that it would be improper to allow Vedder to inform the jury of the settlement. The motion also sought exclusion under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1995), on the ground that the prejudicial impact of allowing such evidence would outweigh any probative value. The trial court denied the motion and ruled that evidence of the settlement was admissible. The Stoevers seek certiorari review of this ruling.
In their petition, the Stoevers argue that denial of the motion in limine constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law. They further argue that no adequate remedy exists by appeal because the entire trial would be fatally flawed by the introduction of this evidence. Moreover, the Stoe-vers maintain that this is a matter of irreparable harm because they cannot afford to continue the lawsuit through a trial, an appeal, and, ultimately, a retrial on remand.
Certiorari review of a nonfinal order is available only if the order is a departure from the essential requirements of law, causing material injury throughout the remainder of the proceedings, and effectively leaving no adequate remedy on appeal. Allstate Insurance Co. v. Langston, 655 So. 2d 91 (Fla.1995); Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097 (Fla.1987). The Stoever’s claim of irreparable harm caused by expenditure of time and money on an unnecessary trial and subsequent appeal is insufficient to justify certiorari review. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Carter, 680 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Paine, Webber, Jackson & Curtis, Inc. v. Lucas, 411 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982).
PETITION DENIED.
DAUKSCH and PETERSON, JJ., concur. . Section 46.015(3) provides:
The fact that a written release of covenant not to sue exists or the fact that any person has been dismissed because of such release or covenant not to sue shall not be made known to the juiy.
. Section 768.041(3) provides:
The fact of such a release or covenant not to sue, or that any defendant has been dismissed by order of the court shall not be made known to the jury.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Zabawa v. Gaeton "Guy" Della Penna, 868 So. 2d 1292 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…215 (Fla.1998). Appellant’s claim of irreparable harm is the fact that he will expend time and money on an unnecessary arbitration. This is an insufficient showing of irreparable harm to justify certiorari review. See Stoever v. Vedder Homes, Inc., 697 So. 2d 1247, 1248 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Appellees’ cross-appeal, which challenges the same order, is likewise dismissed for the same reasons. SHARP, W„ MONACO and TORPY, JJ., concur.…
-
ST. Paul Fire & Marine INS. Co. v. Marina BAY Resort Condo. Assoc., Inc., 794 So. 2d 755 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…m of irreparable injury falls short. See Jaye v. Royal Saxon, Inc. 720 So. 2d 214, 215 (Fla.1998) (rejecting the contention that the possibility of having to bear the expense of trying a case twice is irreparable harm); Stoever v. Vedder Homes, Inc. 697 So. 2d 1247, 1248 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Naghtin, 680 So. 2d at 577. So does St. Paul’s complaint that it may be required to pay the additional attorney’s fees Marina Bay will have to pay its “local counsel”: St. Paul may never be ordered to pay Marina Bay’s fees…
-
Bridges v. Bridges, 734 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…ourt would find error in the trial court’s discretionary ruling on the motion in li-mine, this is not the type of issue for which certiorari lies. See Leibman v. Sportatorium, Inc., 374 So. 2d 1124 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); Stoever v. Vedder Homes, Inc., 697 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Riano v. Heritage Corp. of South Florida, 665 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (holding that writ of certiorari is reserved for those situations where “ ‘there has been a violation of a clearly established principle of law resulti…
Authorities Cited
- Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 1987)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 1995)
- Paine v. Lucas, 411 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. (as successor by merger to The Am. Tobacco Company) v. Grady Carter and Mildred Carter, 680 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)