Background
The dispute stems from litigation over the estate and trust of Aaron Goldman. Aaron’s 1998 and 2005 estate plans named his nephew Jonathan Lewin as sole living beneficiary, personal representative, and trustee. After Aaron died in 2010, Richard, Kenneth, and Mitchel Goldman pursued multiple proceedings challenging those plans and accusing Lewin of wrongdoing.
Those proceedings included a dismissed probate action, a trust action that ended in judgment for Lewin, and a dismissed “Slayer Action” accusing Lewin and his mother of conspiring to cause Aaron’s death. Lewin then sued the Goldmans for abuse of process and conspiracy to abuse process, and sued Richard and Kenneth for malicious prosecution. He sought leave to add punitive-damages claims based on intentional misconduct.
The Court’s Holding
The Third District affirmed the order permitting punitive damages against Richard and Mitchel Goldman, but reversed as to Kenneth Goldman. Under the Florida Supreme Court’s recent decision in Perlmutter, a court considering leave to plead punitive damages considers only the claimant’s evidence, views it favorably to the claimant, and does not weigh it or act as fact-finder. The appellate court held that the trial court was not required to make oral or written findings identifying the evidence on which it relied.
Lewin’s proffer was sufficient as to Richard and Mitchel because it could support a finding of intentional misconduct. It included evidence that they verified probate allegations without evidence or personal knowledge; Richard also allegedly pursued unsupported accusations that Lewin and his mother murdered Aaron. But evidence that Kenneth brought the probate and trust actions without supporting evidence or personal knowledge, standing alone, did not show he actually knew his conduct was wrongful and highly likely to injure Lewin, as required for punitive damages.
Key Takeaways
- A claimant seeking punitive damages under Florida law need only present evidence from which a reasonable person could find intentional misconduct or gross negligence.
- The trial court considers the claimant’s proffer only and may not weigh competing evidence from the opponent at this pleading-stage inquiry.
- Lack of probable cause or evidentiary support alone does not establish the actual knowledge required for punitive damages.
Why It Matters
The decision applies the Florida Supreme Court’s revised framework for punitive-damages amendments and disapproves the prior requirement that trial courts identify the evidence supporting leave to amend. It also illustrates that litigation conduct can support punitive damages when the proffer indicates knowing pursuit of false or unsupported allegations, but not merely because a claim lacked probable cause.