REGUEZ INVESTMENTS, LLC, APPELLANT,
v.
LAZARO HERNANDEZ, APPELLEE
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.
Reguez Investments appealed a final judgment denying foreclosure on a property mortgaged by Hernandez. The trial court initially ruled evidence of an alleged "side deal" involving a separate property inadmissible, but later reversed course and admitted the evidence, surprising Reguez and preventing adequate rebuttal preparation. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial due to prejudicial inconsistency in evidentiary rulings.
The trial court's reversal of its pre-trial ruling admitting evidence of the side deal prejudiced Reguez because the change was made without adequate notice, preventing Reguez from preparing rebuttal evidence. Although trial courts may modify pre-trial rulings as facts develop, civil trials cannot be ambushes for either party. The judgment was reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.
[1] A trial court's pre-trial and mid-trial rulings on the admissibility of evidence are subject to change as the court gains a better understanding of the case.
[2] A party is prejudiced when a trial court alters its rulings on evidence admissibility during trial, leaving the party unprepared to present rebuttal evidence.
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“civil trials are not to be ambushes for one side or the other”
Establishes the fundamental principle limiting trial courts' discretion to change evidentiary rulings mid-trial without prejudicing a party
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceReguez made a loan to Hernandez secured by a purchase money mortgage on residential property. An alleged "side deal" involved forgiveness of the mortg…
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 Error cases and more on FLexlaw
Reguez Investments, LLC, appeals the trial court’s order entering a final judgment denying its attempt to foreclose on a property owned by Hernandez and used as security for a loan made by Reguez to Hernandez. Although Reguez raises multiple issues on appeal regarding the trial court’s admission of evidence and the relief it granted, since we determine that Reguez was prejudiced by the trial court reversing its pre-trial and mid-trial rulings regarding the admissibility of evidence, we reverse the final judgment and remand for a new trial.
Reguez made a loan to Hernandez so that Hernandez could purchase a house. Hernandez gave Reguez a purchase money mortgage to secure the loan. Another transaction, involving a commercial property, referred to as the “Tall Pines property,” was alleged at trial to be a “side deal” to the mortgage loan. The alleged side deal was that Hernandez’s loan from Re-guez would be forgiven once the Tall Pines property was sold because the proceeds of a lien held by Hernandez on the Tall Pines property would be used to satisfy the mortgage.
After Hernandez stopped making payments, Reguez filed a foreclosure action. Prior to trial, Hernandez attempted to file a counterclaim regarding the Tall Pines property, but Reguez successfully blocked the filing of the counterclaim, resulting in a separate action being filed. As evidence was presented at trial, the trial court initially ruled evidence of the side deal was irrelevant and inadmissible. However, as the evidence progressed, the trial court altered its position and allowed evidence of the side deal. Eventually, the side deal became a main source of contention during the trial. Reguez was surprised by the change in position regarding the relevance of the side deal and was unprepared to present rebuttal evidence.
We have held that rulings made prior to trial “are subject to change during trial as the trial court develops an understanding of the facts and circumstances of the case.” Hawker v. State, 951 So.2d 945, 950 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). However, “[cjivil trials are not to be ambushes for one side or the other.” Dep’t of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. J.B. By & Through Spivak, 675 So.2d 241, 248 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Therefore, given the facts of this case, we *891find that Reguez was prejudiced by the trial court’s change in position regarding the admission of evidence concerning the Tall Pines property. We reverse and remand for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded.
DAMOORGIAN, C.J., and FORST, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. J.B., 675 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Hawker v. State, 951 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)