THESE ARE NOT ALL OF THE CASES RELEASED BY THE COURTS FOR THE WEEK.
To see others not presented here, log in for more comprehensive weekly listings.

Colleges and universities -- Contracts -- Impairment -- Direct support organizations -- Action by foundation that agreed to become certified direct service organization of university pursuant to a memorandum of understanding alleging that amendment to the statute governing DSOs unconstitutionally impaired its contractual right to make board appointments and further arguing that a post-contract amendment to Florida Board of Governors regulation regarding DSO budget approval unconstitutionally impaired its contractual right to exercise unfettered control over its budget -- Trial court correctly found that 2018 amendment to DSO statute providing that university board of trustees would approve all appointments to any DSO board of directors unconstitutionally impaired foundation's right to contract where MOU executed prior to amendment contained contractual agreement that foundation maintained right to appoint all foundation board of directors except for two directors to be appointed by university board of trustees -- Trial court correctly found that university failed to demonstrate that amendment was enacted to deal with state objective sufficient to outweigh significant and severe impairment of MOU -- Because MOU did not address adoption/approval of foundation's budget, the amended BOG regulation, which required approval of the foundation's budget by both the foundation and the university, did not unconstitutionally impair the MOU
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Condominiums -- Dispute between unit owners and between unit owner and association -- Breach of governing documents -- Breach of statutory duty -- Limitation of actions -- Action brought against association and neighboring unit owner stemming from leak which caused water damage and mold on plaintiff unit owners' ceilings and walls -- No error in granting summary judgment in favor of defendants based on determination that breach of declaration and breach of statutory duty claims were time-barred where plaintiffs testified that there had been prior leaks and that they had last seen water leaking in 2013 when plaintiffs complained to the association which undertook and completed some repairs -- Continuing tort doctrine was inapplicable where plaintiffs failed show evidence of ongoing nonperformance regarding previous leaks to warrant application of the exception -- Because plaintiffs failed to provide evidence to support the occurrence of a new leak within the limitations period, summary judgment was proper -- Plaintiffs failed to preserve argument that summary judgment in favor of defendant unit owners should be reversed because defendant unit owners never filed a motion for summary judgment
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Corporations -- Shareholder deadlock -- Dissolution -- Election to purchase shares -- Appeals -- Certiorari -- Trial court departed from essential requirements of the law by setting aside petitioners' notice of election to purchase respondent's shares in corporation after respondent had petitioned the court for relief from shareholder deadlock pursuant to section 607.1430(1)(b) based on the respondent's contention that it was not seeking dissolution as a remedy for the deadlock, but rather alternative relief pursuant to section 607.1434 -- According to the plain language of section 607.1436, the triggering event that gave rise to petitioners' right to purchase respondent's shares was respondent's filing of a proceeding under section 607.1430(1)(b) -- By accepting respondent's argument that its selected remedy controlled whether petitioners' right to purchase was triggered, the trial court misapplied the plain language of the statute and departed from the essential requirements of the law -- Irreparable injury will occur if trial court's order is allowed to stand because it ignores the procedural requirements of section 607.1436, which deprives petitioners of their statutory right to purchase respondent's shares and indefinitely extends damaging corporate deadlock
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Landlord-tenant -- Commercial lease -- Eviction -- Default -- Trial court erred by entering default and final judgment of eviction based on tenant's failure to comply with court order requiring tenant to make timely rent payments either to its attorney's trust account or to the landlord directly -- Although tenant breached trial court's order by mailing the payment two days before payment was due, a tenant's breach of an order requiring payment of rent through a lawyer's trust account or directly to the landlord, rather than into the court registry, cannot form the basis for statutory default-for-possession procedure under plain language of section 83.232(5) -- Discussion of section 83.232 -- Section 83.232(5)'s immediate default is triggered only by a failure of the tenant to pay the rent into the court registry pursuant to court order -- Tenant's prior compliance with trial court's uninvited directives to make payments outside the court registry did not constitute a waiver of tenant's right to object to immediate default for possession
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Estates -- Heirs -- Intestate estate -- Pursuant to plain language of section 732.103, persons who have great-grandparents in common with a decedent but who otherwise have no familial relationship with a decedent are not in a class of persons recognized as heirs of an intestate decedent's estate
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Insurance -- Personal injury protection -- Out-of-state policy -- Georgia automobile insurance policy which provided to its insured at least the minimum amounts and types of coverage required by a foreign state's compulsory insurance law if that law required nonresident to maintain insurance whenever the nonresident used a vehicle in that state did not provide Florida PIP coverage for accident that occurred in Florida -- Florida requires nonresidents to carry PIP coverage only if physically present in state for more than 90 days of the previous 365 days, but does not require nonresident to maintain coverage “whenever” the nonresident operates a vehicle in Florida -- Summary judgment in favor of insurer affirmed
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Insurance -- Property -- Windstorm damage -- Evidence -- Expert -- Trial court abused its discretion in denying insurer's motion to exclude expert evidence offered by insureds to support claim for new roof where expert relied upon “Benchmark” data to support his conclusion regarding extent of roof damage without providing any support or independent corroboration establishing reliability of that data and testified that “more than 25%” of roof was damaged without conducting any calculation or using any other method to determine the percentage that was damaged -- New trial required
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Motor vehicles -- Liens -- Towing -- Enforcement of lien -- Sale -- Civil theft -- Deceptive and unfair trade practices -- Summary judgment -- Action involving vehicle which plaintiff purchased without obtaining certificate of title or registering with state -- Trial court did not err by entering summary judgment in favor of defendant towing company on plaintiff's claim that defendant failed to comply with statutory notice requirements of section 713.78 where, prior to sale of vehicle, defendant had sent necessary notice to the registered owner, vehicle's insurer, and other lienholders as disclosed by the records of the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles and National Motor Vehicle Title Information System -- Fact that plaintiff appeared at towing company with documentation to establish that he was the owner did not obligate towing company to conduct further research or investigation regarding the out-of-state expired temporary tag affixed to the vehicle or accept plaintiff's documentation -- Trial court erred by granting summary judgment on all claims in complaint in favor of defendant without addressing plaintiff's civil theft and FDUTPA claims -- Argument that plaintiff lacked standing to bring those additional claims because he never obtained certificate of title was not preserved for appellate review
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal Law Headnotes (Jump to Civil Law Headnotes)

THESE ARE NOT ALL OF THE CASES RELEASED BY THE COURTS FOR THE WEEK.
To see others not presented here, log in for more comprehensive weekly listings.

Criminal law -- Post conviction relief -- Counsel -- Ineffectiveness -- Prejudice -- No error in denying claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to reserve defendant's right to appeal the denial of a motion to suppress -- Defendant's allegation of prejudice was insufficient where defendant failed to allege that he would not have entered a no-contest plea if he had known that he could not appeal the order denying suppression, or that counsel's deficient performance rendered his plea involuntary -- Fact that defendant may have prevailed on appeal had counsel reserved the issue cannot constitute prejudice
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal law -- Probation revocation -- Affidavit -- Necessity -- There is not a statutory requirement that there be an affidavit of violation for a trial court to have authority to revoke probation -- Once a probationer is before the court that granted probation, section 948.06 only requires that a trial court advise the probationer of the alleged violation
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal law -- Sentencing -- Credit for time served -- Jail credit -- Post-sentencing jail time -- Trial court erred by failing to give defendant a day of jail credit for the time defendant spent in jail on the day he was sentenced -- Because defendant was not placed in the custody of the Department of Corrections until the end of the day on the day of sentencing, credit for time served should have been allocated to the time defendant spent in county jail and not his prison sentence
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal law -- Speedy trial -- Discharge -- Recapture period -- Pursuant to “tipsy coachman” doctrine, trial court properly denied defendant's motion for discharge because trial was set within recapture period -- Trial court was required to set defendant's trial no later than 30 days from date court held a hearing on notice of expiration of speedy trial time where chief justice had issued a COVID-19 administrative order increasing the 10-day recapture period to 30 days -- Because 30 days was the applicable recapture time period and trial was set within this period, trial court properly denied defendant's motion for discharge
VIEW OPINION (login required)