Bank of Am. v. Colombo

Full title: Bank of America, N.A., Petitioner, v. Ugo Colombo, et al., Respondents.

Court: Florida Court of Appeals, Third District

Date published: Nov 24, 2021

No. 3D21-1909 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Nov. 24, 2021)

Opinion

3D21-1909

11-24-2021

Bank of America, N.A., Petitioner, v. Ugo Colombo, et al., Respondents.

Liebler, Gonzalez &Portuondo, and Alan M. Pierce and Frank P. Cuneo, for petitioner. Crabtree &Auslander, LLC, and John G. Crabtree, Charles M. Auslander, Linda A. Wells, and Brian C. Tackenberg, for respondents.

HENDON, J.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Lower Tribunal No. 13-8545 William Thomas, Judge.

Liebler, Gonzalez &Portuondo, and Alan M. Pierce and Frank P. Cuneo, for petitioner.

Crabtree &Auslander, LLC, and John G. Crabtree, Charles M. Auslander, Linda A. Wells, and Brian C. Tackenberg, for respondents.

Before HENDON, MILLER, and BOKOR, JJ.

HENDON, J.

Bank of America, N.A., seeks certiorari review of the trial court's order granting Ugo Colombo ("Colombo") leave to assert a claim for punitive damages against Bank of America. We deny the petition.

The record before this Court reflects that the trial court complied with the procedural requirements of section 768.72(1), Florida Statutes (2021). Colombo proffered evidence in support of his claim for punitive damages against Bank of America, and following a hearing, the trial court entered an order finding that Colombo "proffered a reasonable evidentiary basis for a jury to find by clear and convincing evidence that such damages are warranted." Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of certiorari and, in doing so, conclude that the arguments raised by Bank of America lack merit. See Event Depot Corp. v. Frank, 269 So.3d 559, 561-63 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (recognizing that the scope of an appellate court's certiorari review of an order granting a motion for leave to add a claim for punitive damages is limited to whether the trial court complied with the procedural requirements of section 768.72, but certiorari review is not available to review the sufficiency of the respondent's evidentiary proffer); see also E.R. Truck &Equip. Corp. v. Gomont, 300 So.3d 1230, 1231 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020); Sedgwick Claims Mgmt. Servs. v. Rodriguez, 299 So.3d 477, 478-79 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020).

Petition denied.