That evidence better be competent

FLORIDA LAW WEEKLY

VOLUME 49, NUMBER 45

NOVEMBER 8, 2024

A DOCUMENT ATTACHED TO A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR AFFIDAVIT IS NOT COMPETENT EVIDENCE WHERE THE DOCUMENT IS NOT OTHERWISE AUTHENTICATED

Palter v. Sunset Palm Villas Condominium Association, 49 Fla. L. Weekly D2162 (Fla. 3rd DCA Oct. 30, 2024):

Because the court may only consider competent evidence when ruling upon a motion for summary judgment, any document attached to a motion for summary judgment or to an affidavit must be authenticated before the court will consider it.

If a party does not present the material in a form that would be admissible, the opposing party may object, and the court will not consider the evidence.

NO ERROR IN DENYING MOTION SEEKING TO TRANSFER FOR FORUM NON CONVENIENS

Imperial Paving v. Trujillo, 49 Fla. L. Weekly D2167 (Fla. 3rd DCA Oct. 30, 2024):

The appellate court reviews a trial court’s ruling on a motion to transfer venue under Section 47.122 for an abuse of discretion.

Knowing that, a plaintiff’s forum selection is presumptively correct and for a defendant to successfully challenge the venue selection, the defendant bears the burden to show either substantial inconvenience or that undue expense requires a change for the convenience of the party or the witnesses. The burden is met when the defendant comes forward with record evidence to support the transfer.

Because the court found no abuse of discretion, it affirmed the denial of the motion seeking transfer.

TRIAL COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S PERSONAL INJURY CLAIM BASED ON THE PLAINTIFF’S FRAUD ON THE COURT

Epps v. Morrow, 49 Fla. L. Weekly D2191 (Fla. 5th DCA Nov. 1, 2024):

The court found that there was competent and substantial evidence in the record to support the trial court’s findings that the plaintiff intentionally provided false testimony and misleading discovery responses in an effort to hamper the defendant’s efforts to investigate the cause, nature, and extent of the plaintiff’s injuries and medical conditions.

The trial court properly weighed the policy favoring adjudication on the merits against the need to maintain the integrity of the judicial system in deciding what sanction would be appropriate under the circumstances. It properly concluded that the record evidence clearly and convincingly demonstrated that the plaintiff sentiently set in motion an unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial system’s ability to impartially adjudicate a matter. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the plaintiff’s case with prejudice.

The court rejected the plaintiff’s reliance on Jimenez v. Ortega for the argument that the plaintiff was entitled to recover some of her damages because the defendants had admitted fault for the collision. Unlike Jimenez, the defendants in this case specifically contested the cause and extent of the injuries claimed by the plaintiff.