Fans of law-of-the-case and scope-of-the-appellate-mandate doctrines may want to check out the Second District's decision in LG Harris Family Limited Partnership v. 905 S. Main Street. The rest of you? Eh--move along.
This opinion is, as I recall, the third in the series between these parties, following a jury trial. The first was dismissed for lack of a final appealable order because an attorney's fee issue remained unresolved. The second affirmed the jury's verdict on liability a breach of contract claim but reversed on the issue of damages (more specifically--found that the plaintiff had failed to prove the existence of damages), thus totally wiping out the plaintiff's claim.
The mandate in the second appeal included a remand with instructions to enter judgment consistent with opinion. Unfortunately for the parties, a new trial judge took over the case following an election, and somehow or other the plaintiff's claims ended up being dismissed, and there was more wrangling over attorney's fees.
Ultimately the Second District resolved this third appeal by incorporating very specific mandate instructions to the trial court: the judgment must reflect that the jury found that the defendant breached the contract, that the plaintiff failed to prove damages, that no party is the prevailing party for purposes of contractual attorney's fees, and that court costs are to be split equally.
As a final note, let me just say how pleased I am that someone else seems to care as much as I do about the difference between judgment dismissal. When a defendant prevails on the plaintiff's claims, the plaintiff's claims aren't dismissed. Instead a judgment is entered in the defendant's favor. Too many lawyers--and judges--don't seem to know or care about this distinction.
No comments:
Post a Comment