BATH FITTER FRANCHISING, INC., APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
FERNAND LABELLE, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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.
Florida appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of a preliminary injunction in a franchise dispute and upheld exclusion of a surreptitiously recorded telephone conversation under Florida's two-party consent wiretapping statute.
A franchisor cannot obtain a preliminary injunction against a former minority franchisee owner under Vermont law, and a surreptitiously recorded telephone conversation is inadmissible in Florida proceedings under the two-party consent requirement.
[1] A surreptitiously recorded telephone conversation is inadmissible in Florida proceedings when one party was unaware of the recording and located in Florida, even if the r…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“the recording and "evidence derived therefrom" are inadmissible (with limited exceptions inapplicable to this record)”
Court's explanation of Florida's two-party consent wiretapping statute and its application to exclude the surreptitiously recorded conversation
Bath Fitter Franchising, Inc., a franchisor, sought a preliminary injunction against Fernand Labelle, a former minority owner of a Bath Fitter franchi…
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 Consent To Recording cases and more on FLexlaw
Bath Fitter Franchising, Inc., a franchisor and independent operator specializing in the manufacture, sale, and installation of bathroom products, appeals a non-final order denying its emergency motion for a preliminary injunction against Fernand Labelle, formerly the owner of a minority interest in a Bath Fitter franchisee. La-belle cross-appeals the trial court’s eviden-tiary ruling that a surreptitiously-recorded telephone conversation was inadmissible.
*589In the appeal, we find no error in the trial court’s determination that the substantive law of Vermont was controlling, Mazzoni Farms, Inc. v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., 761 So.2d 306, 311 (Fla.2000), as specified in the franchise agreement. We also conclude that the trial court correctly applied the substantive law of Vermont in denying the motion for an injunction on multiple grounds. Roy’s Orthopedic, Inc. v. Lavigne, 487 A.2d 173 (Vt.1985).
In the cross-appeal, we find no abuse of discretion and affirm the trial court’s exclusion of the surreptitiously-recorded telephone conversation. One of the parties was in Florida and unaware that the conversation was being recorded in Utah. We venture no opinion regarding the result if the recorded telephone conversation was offered in a court in Utah (which has a different statute requiring only one party’s consent). In a Florida proceeding such as this, however, the recording and “evidence derived therefrom” are inadmissible (with limited exceptions inapplicable to this record). § 934.06, Fla. Stat. (2014).
Affirmed as to both the appeal and cross-appeal.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Mazzoni Farms, Inc. v. E.I. DuPONT DE Nemours & Co., 761 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 2000)