Giller Group, Ltd. v. Giller , 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 11666 ( 2016 )

Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed August 3, 2016.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
Nos. 3D14-2592 & 3D14-1386
Lower Tribunal No. 09-66784
________________
Giller Group, Ltd., etc.,
Appellant/Cross-Appellee,
vs.
Brian Giller, etc., et al.,
Appellees/Cross-Appellants.
Appeals from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jacqueline Hogan
Scola, Judge, and Judith L. Kreeger, Senior Judge.
Howard J. Hollander; Keith D. Silverstein, for appellant/cross-appellee.
Andrew B. Peretz and Jacob M. Resnick (Fort Lauderdale), for
appellees/cross-appellants.
Before WELLS, EMAS and LOGUE, JJ.
EMAS, J.
In this consolidated appeal, Giller Group, Ltd. appeals from a final judgment
and a final order denying Giller Group, Ltd.’s motion to set aside verdict and for
new trial. In their cross-appeal, Brian Giller, individually and as trustee of the
Norman Giller Trust, appeal from the trial court’s orders that: directed a verdict in
favor of Giller Group, Ltd. on three counts of Brian Giller’s counterclaim based on
lack of standing; entered summary judgment in favor of Giller Group, Ltd. on
Brian Giller’s counterclaims for money lent, breach of fiduciary duty, indemnity
and gratuitous assumption of risk; and imposed sanctions upon Brian Giller for
discovery violations.
We affirm the final judgment and the trial court’s order denying Giller
Group, Ltd.’s motion to set aside verdict and for new trial, as the claim was not
properly preserved by a contemporaneous objection to the form of the verdict. See
Progressive Select Ins. Co. v. Lorenzo, 49 So. 3d 272, 276 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
(observing that “Florida courts have required any objection to the form of the
verdict to be made before the discharge of the jury to allow correction of a
correctable error. Higbee v. Dorigo, 66 So. 2d 684, 685 (Fla. 1953). When that
verdict is rendered and ‘no objection appears to have been made to the form of
verdict when the same was presented to the court, the form thereof was waived.’
General Motors [Acceptance Corp. v. Judge of Circuit Court], 136 So. [621] at 622
2
[(Fla. 1931)]. This requirement has withstood the test of time and remains the law
today.”) (Additional citations omitted.)
As to the claims raised in Brian Giller’s cross-appeal, and upon our de novo
review, we affirm the trial court’s order directing a verdict in favor of Giller
Group, Ltd. on Brian Giller’s counterclaims for breach of contract, negligent
misrepresentation and breach of warranty, given the absence of any evidence at
trial to establish Brian Giller’s standing as a trust beneficiary. We also affirm the
summary judgment orders in favor of Giller Group, Ltd. on Brian Giller’s
counterclaims for money lent, breach of fiduciary duty, indemnity and gratuitous
assumption of risk.
Finally, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s determination that
Brian Giller failed to comply with discovery requests and its decision to award
attorney’s fees incurred by the opposing party in an effort to obtain compliance.
See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.380(a)(4),(b). Compare Channel Components, Inc. v. Am. II
Elec., Inc., 915 So. 2d 1278, 1283 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (holding that where the
court imposes “a monetary sanction or fine unconnected to the expenses (such as
attorneys’ fees) caused by the failure to provide discovery,” such a sanction “must
be predicated upon a finding of contempt.”).
Affirmed.
3