In mortgage foreclosure action, trial court abused its discretion in excluding records of a previous servicer because the “bank’s witness demonstrated sufficient familiarity with boarding process, and his testimony established the trustworthiness of the prior servicer’s records.” Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC v. Gunderson, 41 Fla. L. Weekly D2238 (Fla. 4th DCA Sept. 28, 2016).
“[T]he trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in allowing the party to call the reporter as a witness without prior notice and without any showing that the reporter had any relevant testimony.” Palm Beach Newspapers, LLC v. Colin, 41 Fla. L. Weekly D2125 (Fla. 4th DCA Sept. 14, 2016).
In asbestos exposure case, trial court abused its discretion in allowing three of plaintiff’s expert witnesses to testify because their testimony did not satisfy the standard in Daubert that their opinion had to be based upon reliable studies and data and establish a causal link. Crane Co. v. Delisle, 41 Fla. L. Weekly D2133 (Fla. 4th DCA Sept. 14, 2016).
Trial court departed from essential requirements of law in denying mortgagor assignees motion to compel deposition of mortgagee’s only listed witness on basis mortgagor assignee was a “stranger to the note and mortgage” because the testimony could be relevant to the affirmative defense of lack of standing. 575 Adams, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 41 Fla. L. Weekly D1777 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 8, 2016).
In an action for breach of a royalty-bearing license agreement, trial court erred in granting defendant’s motion in limine to preclude plaintiff from offering evidence of revenues received after the expiration of the agreement on basis defendant never sent a “continuation notice” because that provision was for the benefit of the plaintiff and was inconsistent with another provision of the contract that specifically obligated defendant to pay royalties for end-users’ continued use of the licensed materials after the expiration of the contract. Utopia Provider Systems, Inc. v. Pro-Med Clinical Systems, LLC, 41 Fla. L. Weekly D1747 (Fla. 4th DCA July 27, 2016).
Judge of Compensation Claims abused her discretion in admitting an attorney’s testimony relating to costs of surveillance, labor market research, and vocational expert services over hearsay objection because it was based only on entries without any “follow-up correspondence or bills indicating outstanding amounts owed.” Luciano v. Adecco, 194 So.3d 587 (Mem) (Fla. 1st DCA July 20, 2016).