Fernando Costantini Gomes v. Victor Maniglia
Docket 3D2025-2086
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- Florida
- Court
- District Court of Appeal of Florida
- Type
- Opinion
- Case type
- Civil
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Docket
- 3D2025-2086
Appeal from a non-final order in a civil action in the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County.
Summary
The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed a non-final circuit court order in a civil case where appellant Fernando Costantini Gomes sought to pursue punitive damages under Florida’s vulnerable-adult statutes. The panel held that the statutory framework permits a vulnerable adult to recover actual and punitive damages for abuse, neglect, or exploitation, but a plaintiff must make a reasonable showing in the record (or by proffer) that the defendant’s conduct amounted to intentional misconduct or gross negligence to justify punitive damages. Applying those standards, the appellate court affirmed the lower court’s ruling.
Issues Decided
- Whether a plaintiff alleging exploitation of a vulnerable adult may recover punitive damages under Florida law
- Whether the plaintiff made the required reasonable showing in the record (or by proffer) that the defendant’s conduct constituted intentional misconduct or gross negligence to justify punitive damages
Court's Reasoning
The court relied on Florida statutes that create a cause of action for vulnerable adults and authorize punitive damages but condition punitive awards on a reasonable showing of evidence supporting intentional misconduct or gross negligence. The court applied the standard from Monsanto Co. v. Behar requiring record evidence or a proffer demonstrating either actual knowledge of wrongful conduct with a high probability of injury or conduct so reckless it showed conscious disregard. Because the appellant failed to meet that statutory and rule-based threshold, the appellate court affirmed the lower court’s ruling.
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Stat. § 415.1111Fla. Stat. § 415.1111 (2025)
- Fla. Stat. § 415.102(8)(a)Fla. Stat. § 415.102(8)(a) (2025)
- Fla. Stat. § 768.72(1)Fla. Stat. § 768.72(1) (2025)
- Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190(f)Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.190(f)
- Monsanto Co. v. Behar417 So. 3d 383, 388 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)
Parties
- Appellant
- Fernando Costantini Gomes
- Appellee
- Victor Maniglia
- Judge
- Reemberto Diaz
- Attorney
- Ronald R. Hink, Jr.
- Attorney
- Jane W. Muir
Key Dates
- Opinion filed
- 2026-04-29
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consider filing a motion for rehearing
If the appellant believes there are grounds, file a timely motion for rehearing to preserve appellate issues before the opinion becomes final.
- 2
Supplement the record or prepare a proffer
If punitive damages are still sought, gather and present additional evidence or a detailed proffer showing intentional misconduct or gross negligence to meet the Rule 1.190(f) and statutory standard.
- 3
Consult counsel about further appeals or trial strategy
Discuss whether to seek further appellate review or adjust trial pleadings and discovery to address the evidentiary deficiencies identified by the court.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The court affirmed the lower court’s non-final order, holding that punitive damages under the vulnerable-adult statutes require a reasonable showing of intentional misconduct or gross negligence in the record or by proffer.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- Parties in civil cases alleging abuse, neglect, or exploitation of vulnerable adults in Florida who seek punitive damages are affected, because they must meet the statutory and rule-based evidentiary threshold.
- What happens next in this case?
- The opinion is not final until disposition of any timely motion for rehearing; if none succeeds, the case will proceed under the affirmed ruling and the plaintiff may attempt to cure any deficiency in the record or proffer.
- What legal showing is required to seek punitive damages?
- A reasonable showing by evidence in the record or to be proffered that the defendant acted with intentional misconduct (actual knowledge and conscious pursuit of harmful conduct) or gross negligence (reckless disregard for others’ safety or rights).
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed April 29, 2026.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D25-2086
Lower Tribunal No. 20-17447-CA-01
________________
Fernando Costantini Gomes,
Appellant,
vs.
Victor Maniglia,
Appellee.
An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade
County, Reemberto Diaz, Judge.
The Hink Law Firm, P.A., and Ronald R. Hink, Jr., for appellant.
J. Muir & Associates, P.A., and Jane W. Muir, for appellee.
Before GORDO, BOKOR and GOODEN, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See § 415.1111, Fla. Stat. (2025) (“A vulnerable adult who
has been abused, neglected, or exploited as specified in this chapter has a
cause of action against any perpetrator and may recover actual and punitive
damages for such abuse, neglect, or exploitation.”); § 415.102(8)(a), Fla.
Stat. (2025) (defining “exploitation” of a vulnerable adult); see also §
768.72(1), Fla. Stat. (2025) (“In any civil action, no claim for punitive
damages shall be permitted unless there is a reasonable showing by
evidence in the record or proffered by the claimant which would provide a
reasonable basis for recovery of such damages.”); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.190(f)
(“A motion for leave to amend a pleading to assert a claim for punitive
damages shall make a reasonable showing, by evidence in the record or
evidence to be proffered by the claimant, that provides a reasonable basis
for recovery of such damages.”); Monsanto Co. v. Behar, 417 So. 3d 383,
388 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025) (“That record evidence or proffer must reasonably
demonstrate that the defendant was guilty of either ‘intentional misconduct’
or ‘gross negligence.’ The former means that the defendant had actual
knowledge of the wrongfulness of the conduct and the high probability that
injury or damage to the claimant would result and, despite that knowledge,
intentionally pursued that course of conduct, resulting in injury or damage.
The latter means that the defendant’s conduct was so reckless or wanting in
care that it constituted a conscious disregard or indifference to the life, safety,
or rights of persons exposed to such conduct.”) (citations omitted).
2