Gary Farmer

The case involved a defendant charged with sexual battery on his niece, who was under 12 at the time of the alleged abuse, and resulted in a conviction after three trials. On appeal, the court reversed for a new trial, concluding that the trial court erred in admitting the victim's pretrial hearsay statements to police. The core reasoning was that the order admitting the statements failed to include the specific findings of reliability and trustworthiness required by Florida Statute § 90.803(23), instead relying only on boilerplate language, which was insufficient under precedent like Hopkins v. State to allow review or ensure compliance with confrontation rights. The objection was preserved, though the court found no error in admitting testimony from other witnesses under the Williams rule.

criminal lawprocedure

In Brown v. State, the defendant was convicted of burglary of a dwelling and possession of burglary tools after police seized him near the scene of an ongoing burglary, returned him for identification by the resident, and found a rigged screwdriver during a search incident to arrest. Brown appealed, arguing that police lacked reasonable suspicion for the investigatory stop and that the evidence should have been suppressed, and he also challenged the proof of his prison releasee reoffender status for sentencing. The court affirmed the convictions and sentence, holding that the stop was justified because police responded in real time, the resident provided a specific description and location of the suspect leaving the scene, and only one person matched that description. The court distinguished prior cases where stops were based on mere presence in the area without such particularized and timely facts. It also found the state's certified records sufficient to establish the release date for sentencing purposes.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a contract between a condominium association and a public insurance adjuster for handling an insurance claim, under which the adjuster would receive 10% of any recovered proceeds. The adjuster sued the association for fees even though no insurance benefits had been recovered, leading to dismissal of the suit for failure to state a claim; the association then sought prevailing-party attorney's fees under a contractual provision stating that the prevailing party in any action shall be entitled to reasonable fees. The trial court denied fees, finding no prevailing party, but the appellate court reversed, concluding that the association prevailed in the dismissed action and that the contract's fee provision must be enforced as a matter of law without judicial discretion when one party loses.

business & regulatoryproperty

In Wright v. State, the defendant was placed on 24 months of probation in February 2007, and five months later received a concurrent 36-month prison sentence on an unrelated charge. After the probation term ended in February 2009, the state filed a violation of probation charge in March 2009 based on a refused drug test. The trial court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and adjudicated him guilty. On appeal, the court reversed and ordered dismissal, reasoning that under Florida statute section 948.04(2) probation ends by operation of law with no further liability, the violation occurred after termination, and the concurrent sentence did not toll the already-commenced probation period.

criminal lawprocedure

A condominium association sued the joint owners of a Florida unit for an injunction to enforce rental rules. The owners, who live separately in Chicago, moved to quash service, challenging both the pleading of long-arm jurisdiction and the validity of service itself. The court held that the complaint sufficiently alleged jurisdiction by pleading ownership of real property in the state under the long-arm statute. It affirmed denial of the motion to quash for one owner because the return showed valid personal service at the address on the summons, but reversed as to the other owner because her affidavit created a factual conflict over whether the address was her usual place of abode, requiring an evidentiary hearing to resolve.

propertyprocedure

The case involved condominium unit owners suing contractors and others for additional damages after flooding from improperly installed sewage lines, following a prior class action settlement reached by the condominium association on behalf of all unit owners. The defendants moved to enforce the settlement agreement against the owners as class members, and after an evidentiary hearing the trial court granted the motion and dismissed the suit. The owners appealed, arguing they were not bound by the agreement. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the valid settlement agreement explicitly bound all class members and that the owners had presented no evidence of having opted out of the class before court approval.

propertyprocedure

The case involved the City of Wilton Manors appealing the Division of Retirement's refusal to distribute premium tax revenues from casualty insurance to fund its combined retirement plan for general employees and police officers. The court affirmed the agency's decision, holding that the City must comply with the 1999 statutory requirement under § 185.05(1)(b)3 to hold an election among police officers to separate their plan from the combined one in order to continue receiving the funds. The core reasoning was that the statute mandates this separation for eligibility in the premium tax trust fund distributions, and the Division's interpretation aligns with the plain text of the law requiring annual compliance for participation, which is voluntary but conditioned on meeting the standards.

labor & employmenttaxesbusiness & regulatory

The case involved a minor appealing the dismissal of her petition to waive the parental notice requirement for obtaining a termination of pregnancy. The trial court had denied the waiver, finding that the minor had not shown by clear and convincing evidence that she was sufficiently mature or that notification was not in her best interest. The appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court's findings were insufficiently specific as required by statute, and that the undisputed evidence supported granting the waiver on both grounds of maturity and best interests, applying the appropriate evidentiary standards.

abortionfamily law

In this mortgage foreclosure case involving a hotel property, the lender sought and obtained appointment of a receiver after alleging default on a $28.8 million loan, then moved to authorize the receiver to market and sell the distressed property for $9 million before any final judgment foreclosing the owner's interest. The trial court granted the motion over the owner's objection that no legal authority existed for such a sale. The appellate court reversed the non-final order, holding that no Florida statute specifically authorizes a foreclosure receiver to sell mortgaged property pre-judgment and that the mortgage contract itself limited the receiver's powers to protecting, preserving, and operating the property while collecting rents, without any power of sale. The court reasoned that the explicit caretaker provisions in the mortgage deliberately excluded broader sale authority and that the owner's redemption rights remained intact until final judgment.

propertyprocedure

The case involved a defendant sentenced to one year of probation beginning August 27, 2007. On the final day of that period, a probation officer filed an affidavit of violation and an arrest warrant was issued, which the State conceded was one day late. The court reversed the revocation of probation and the resulting sentence. It reasoned that section 948.06(1) requires the affidavit and warrant to be filed and issued before the probation period expires, consistent with prior holdings in cases such as Stambaugh v. State and Clark v. State.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned a class action by over 50,000 Broward County homeowners whose healthy residential citrus trees were destroyed by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services as part of its citrus canker eradication program. The trial court found that the destruction of more than 100,000 unaffected trees was a taking for public use, entitling owners to just compensation, and a jury awarded $11.5 million, leading after setoffs and interest to an $8 million judgment. On appeal, the Department argued errors in evidence weighing, lack of compensable value due to nuisance status, improper taking tests, statutory preemption of inverse condemnation claims, incorrect damages measures, and improper prejudgment interest. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed, concluding that substantial competent evidence supported the trial court's and jury's findings on tree value and reliability of scientific evidence, and that the Department's legal arguments were without merit.

propertyenvironment

The case involved a dispute between a lender with a perfected security interest in an art gallery's inventory and a consignor who placed a painting with the gallery for sale without perfecting his interest. The trial court awarded the painting to the consignor based on the lender's knowledge of consignment sales, but the appellate court reversed. The court reasoned that under the Florida Uniform Commercial Code, the lender's perfected security interest has priority over the consignor's unperfected interest, as there was no evidence that the gallery was generally known by creditors to be substantially engaged in consignment sales, and the consignor failed to file a financing statement or provide required notice.

business & regulatoryproperty

In ELF v. State, a juvenile was charged with criminal battery after intervening in a traffic dispute between two drivers, during which a male driver punched and kicked a pregnant female driver who had followed and confronted him. The juvenile testified that he acted to defend the woman after seeing the male driver attack her, and defense witnesses corroborated that he did not initiate the fight. The trial court denied motions for judgment of acquittal, finding the juvenile's actions unreasonable under the circumstances despite the close evidence on self-defense. On appeal, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the defense presented prima facie evidence of self-defense and defense of another, which the State failed to rebut beyond a reasonable doubt, requiring acquittal. The court reviewed the denial of the motion de novo and emphasized that the burden to disprove self-defense remains with the State.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a dissolution of marriage in which the mother sought child support for two minor children from the father, who had been convicted of domestic violence against her and was scheduled for imprisonment. The trial court declined to set any amount of child support attributable to the father on the ground that he had no income while incarcerated. The appellate court reversed, holding that income must be imputed to the father under section 61.30(2)(b) because his unemployment resulted from voluntary criminal conduct. Relying on precedents such as Mascola v. Lusskin and Department of Revenue v. Jackson, the court reasoned that incarceration does not justify eliminating the support obligation itself, though remedies for nonpayment may be limited, and arrearages may accumulate for payment after release.

family lawcriminal law

This case involved an election contest in the Town of Palm Beach after incumbent Mayor McDonald won a runoff election by a single vote. Challenger Goldsmith argued that the Canvassing Board improperly excluded 13 absentee ballots that arrived after the 7 p.m. deadline on election day, claiming some should have been counted under substantial compliance because they were mailed earlier. The trial court found no evidence that the ballots reached the supervisor's post office box by the deadline and upheld the Board's decision. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Florida statutes require absentee ballots to actually reach the supervisor by 7 p.m. on election day, placing the burden on the voter rather than the postal service, and that late arrival does not satisfy the statutory condition regardless of when the ballot was mailed. The court emphasized that election officials' determinations are presumed correct when reasonable and consistent with the law.

elections

The case involved a juvenile, E.D., convicted of criminal mischief for striking another vehicle while backing out of a parking space. The appellate court reversed the conviction and remanded for a judgment of dismissal, accepting the state's concession of error. The court found no evidence that the defendant acted willfully or maliciously, as required for the offense. The only facts supported a determination of negligent driving rather than criminal conduct.

criminal law

The case involved a dispute between McLaughlin, Inc. and Ric-Man International, Inc. over recovery of direct job costs under a quantum meruit claim. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's final judgment awarding those costs based on two invoices dated April 2002 and May 2002. It reversed solely on the issue of prejudgment interest, ruling that interest must be calculated from the specific dates each invoice payment was due. The core reasoning was that Florida law entitles quantum meruit recoveries to prejudgment interest from the date of loss when damages are liquidated by fixing that date, and losses occurring on separate dates require separate interest calculations from each due date.

business & regulatory

The case involved a defendant convicted of possession of cocaine for sale who appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence from a search of his person after a traffic stop. Officers had observed a brief interaction at a suspected drug location where the defendant appeared to exchange something for money but did not see the item exchanged, then stopped and searched him based on their experience with narcotics patterns, finding cocaine in his shoe. The appellate court reversed the conviction, holding that the search was invalid. The court reasoned that the observations provided only reasonable suspicion rather than probable cause for the search, as the transaction details were not fully visible and similar innocent exchanges occur, consistent with prior precedent like Coney v. State.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a defendant charged with lewd and lascivious molestation for allegedly fondling the clothed buttocks of a child under 12 in a supermarket, where the key dispute was whether the touching occurred on the buttocks as opposed to the back. The trial court admitted testimony and a demonstration from the investigating detective describing the child's out-of-court account of the touch, over a hearsay objection, and gave the jury the standard molestation instruction without specifying the body part touched. On appeal, the court held that the detective's evidence constituted inadmissible hearsay because it conveyed the child's nonverbal assertions about the touching without complying with the child hearsay statute's notice and reliability requirements, and that this evidence likely affected the verdict given ambiguities in the child's testimony and video evidence. The court also noted that the jury instruction was flawed for allowing conviction based on touching the back rather than the buttocks. The court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial.

criminal lawprocedure

This case is a dissolution of marriage proceeding involving marital assets exceeding $26 million. The trial court awarded advances against equitable distribution to each spouse and later ordered an equalization payment from the husband to the wife, along with prejudgment interest on that payment. The appellate court affirmed the final judgment in all respects except the calculation of the equalization payment, holding that a $101,894 credit for unequal advances should be eliminated because the advances were already fully accounted for in the distribution of the marital estate, thereby reducing the payment from $1,450,006 to $1,348,112. On rehearing, the court denied the motion, leaving the prejudgment interest award in place, over a dissent arguing that interest was improper where assets were valued as of the date of final judgment rather than the date of filing.

family law