Punitive Damages Against Fiduciaries: Leaving Hoppe Behind and Allowing Punitive Damages Where Equitable Relief Is Sought, Part II

In the last issue, we talked about whether punitive damages can be awarded in certain cases in Florida. This time, we’ll explain why those damages are available and clear up the old idea that they’re not allowed in these types of cases. In Florida, there’s a debate about whether juries should decide on punitive damages in court cases. Some people think that since the old distinction between law and equity courts doesn’t exist anymore, juries should always decide on punitive damages. Others argue that the merger of law and equity courts only got rid of procedural differences, not substantive ones. They say that juries deciding on punitive damages is a procedural issue, not a substantive one. However, some courts think that there are still big differences between law and equity and so they prefer the old rule. But some people argue that since courts have used equitable principles in legal cases before, they should also use them for punitive damages. They say that it’s important for juries to decide on punitive damages, because it represents the “collective conscience” of the people. In a legal system that combines both traditional rules and fairness, there are debates about whether a person can seek both fair treatment and punishment for a wrongdoer. Some argue that seeking fair treatment means giving up the right to seek punishment, but others say this doesn’t make sense. They argue that it’s important to be able to seek both types of relief in order to fully address the harm done. Additionally, some argue that punitive damages can only be awarded by a jury, but others say that courts should be able to award them in certain cases to prevent wrongdoing. In the past, it was believed that the community’s common sense should determine how much punishment someone should get. But now, people often criticize jury decisions, especially when they award punitive damages. Defendants now rely on the court to protect them from unfair punishment, rather than the jury. However, there’s no good reason to deny punitive damages in Florida, especially in cases where someone in charge of a trust mistreats the people they’re supposed to be looking out for. Punitive damages should be allowed in Florida courts even when someone is seeking equitable relief. These damages are meant to deter bad behavior, not just punish it. The rules for civil action in Florida allow for punitive damages. The idea that you can’t get punitive damages for actions dealt with in equity court might not be true. In the past, courts of equity did sometimes give out punitive damages. This was discussed in a case called Mertens v. Hewitt Assoc. Punitive damages have been given out in trust cases, which are part of equity law. So, there’s no reason why punitive damages shouldn’t be available in equity cases. The dissent’s confident claim that punitive damages were not available in trust cases does not match the state of the law when ERISA was enacted. A major book on remedies from a year earlier stated that most courts still didn’t allow punitive damages in trust cases. It would have been even riskier to presume that punitive damages were unavailable in trust cases where law-type damages were routinely awarded. The few trust cases that did allow punitive damages were not exclusively actions at law. So, the dissent’s argument that punitive damages were not available in trust cases doesn’t hold up. In certain legal cases in Florida, punitive damages should be available when someone in a position of trust, like a trustee or attorney-in-fact, abuses their power and harms the people they are supposed to be looking out for. This is especially important in Florida because there is a lot of money that will be passed down to the Baby Boomer generation, and with more people living longer, there is a greater chance for abuse of power by those managing other people’s property. This is a big problem in Florida, and the ability to seek punitive damages can help deter people from taking advantage of others. In Florida, lawyers are unsure if courts will award punitive damages along with equitable relief in certain cases. This is important because punitive damages can be a deterrent to wrongdoing. The traditional rule should be rejected in favor of recognizing Glusman as current Florida law. This would provide better protection for Florida residents. The idea of “collective wisdom” is used in predictive models called “information markets” to make better predictions. In a legal case, punitive damages can be awarded in addition to other types of relief. The judgment of a group of people (like a jury) is preferred when awarding punitive damages because it represents the collective conscience, rather than just one person’s judgment. Punitive damages are not meant to be a form of revenge, but rather to make sure the wrongdoer doesn’t repeat their bad behavior. They are also meant to punish the wrongdoer and deter others from doing the same thing. These damages are different from regular damages, and are based on factors like the wrongdoer’s net worth and the severity of their actions. These are profiles of different lawyers and legal professionals who specialize in areas like estate litigation, securities and business law, and expert witness services. They are all recognized for their expertise in their respective fields and are members of different law firms or organizations.

Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/punitive-damages-against-fiduciaries-leaving-hoppe-behind-and-allowing-punitive-damages-where-equitable-relief-is-sought-part-ii/