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.

Dissolution of marriage -- Torts -- Relief from judgment -- Attorney's fees -- Sanctions -- Justiciable issues -- Claim or defense not supported by material facts or applicable law -- Multiple tort claims brought against former husband despite release of claims provision in consent judgment of dissolution -- Trial court erred by denying former husband's motion for sanctions brought under section 57.105(1) based on its determination that it could vacate consent judgment based on fraud -- Under the circumstances, trial court did not have ability to provide relief from consent judgment where there was no claim or motion filed by former wife to set aside the consent judgment in the civil action and counsel's withdrawal of rule 12.540(b) motion in the dissolution proceedings prevented the family law judge from ruling on that motion -- Remand for further proceedings to determine whether former wife's claims were subject to release and whether counsel had a good faith basis to bring claims despite the release and the court's inability to set aside the judgment under rule 12.540
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Family Law Rules of Procedure -- Forms -- Amendment -- Disclosure from nonlawyer -- Notice of limited appearance -- Consent to limited appearance by attorney -- Termination of limited appearance -- Acknowledgment of assistance by attorney -- Agreement limiting representation -- Petition for simplified dissolution of marriage -- Financial affidavit long form -- Child support guidelines worksheet -- Notice of service of standard family law interrogatories -- Standard family law interrogatories for original or enforcement proceedings and for modification proceedings -- Certificate of compliance with mandatory disclosure
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Insurance -- Homeowners -- Assignment of benefits -- Validity -- Assignee's action against insurer -- Trial court erred by granting insurer's motion to dismiss based on determination that assignment of benefits was invalid under section 627.7152(7)(a), which generally prohibits an assignee and its subcontractors from collecting or attempting to collect money from insured for payments arising from the assignment agreement, because it included a client agreement to pay for “depreciation or additional work” -- Paragraph at issue addresses payment for services requested that are “not covered by insurance,” and requiring payment for such services is in line with section 627.7152 -- Even if paragraph had violated subsection (7), noncompliance with subsection (7) does not invalidate an entire assignment agreement
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Landlord-tenant -- Eviction -- Jurisdiction -- Injunctions -- Domestic violence -- Domestic violence injunction entered against landlord which granted tenant temporary, exclusive possession of the home -- County court lacked jurisdiction to grant landlord possession of home while temporary domestic violence injunction entered by circuit court was in effect -- While county court had jurisdiction to adjudicate parties' respective rights of possession of the home under section 83.59 to the extent such rights derived from a rental agreement and its termination, it did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate rights of possession which derived from a domestic violence injunction under section 741.30
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Real property -- Waterfront property -- Dedication to municipality -- Public park -- Trial court erred by granting partial summary judgment in favor of plaintiff and declaring that park contained within subdivision was private -- Park was dedicated for public use where 1955 plat amendment labeled the parcel as a “park,” which implied dedication to the public, and reservation of rights contained within the amendment only authorized future restrictions which limited riparian rights to non-commercial purposes -- Clarifying dedication recorded by four of seven original dedicators in 1976, which asserted that their original intent was for the park to be solely for subdivision property owners' private use and restricted permissible activities, was invalid where purported use restrictions exceeded reservation of rights contained in 1955 plat amendment -- Furthermore, clarifying dedication was not made jointly by all dedicators and subdivision owners as required by original retention of rights -- Long history of county and city maintenance and improvement of the park, and open public use of it, were legally sufficient to establish governmental acceptance of the park for public use -- Limitation of actions -- Plaintiff's claim was barred by statute of limitations where plaintiff received actual written and oral notice of claimed issues with park when she purchased her subdivision plot over twenty years ago -- As claim was in nature of an action to enforce an easement, it was subject to five-year statute of limitations
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Rules of Juvenile Procedure -- Amendment -- Discovery -- Production of documents and things without deposition
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Torts -- Automobile accident -- Vicarious liability -- Dangerous instrumentality doctrine -- Plaintiff struck by defendant's employee while employee was driving his company car under influence of alcohol -- Trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of defendant based on determination that defendant could not be held vicariously liable under dangerous instrumentality doctrine because employee's intoxication while driving violated terms of his employment agreement -- Reasonable jury could return verdict in plaintiff's favor because the defendant's instruction not to drink alcohol while using its vehicle did not negate its consent for employee to otherwise fully possess and use the company car
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 -- Aggravated battery with firearm -- Jury instructions -- Self-defense -- Justifiable use of deadly force -- Charges stemming from defendant's shooting of victim while in his friend and neighbor's yard following an argument -- Trial court erred by denying defendant's requested jury instruction on justifiable use of deadly force -- Discussion of a defendant's entitlement to have jury instructed on self-defense -- Jury could find that reasonable doubt existed as to whether defendant reasonably believed that use of deadly force was necessary where defendant was surrounded by a group of larger men who had been drinking, two of which were moving toward him and trying to grab him after one had shoved defendant to the ground -- Evidence was sufficient to suggest that defendant was in a place he had a right to be where, although defendant had been told to leave the property after an initial argument, the group had allowed defendant to retrieve his belongings which had been left on the property and were assisting him in retrieving those items -- Evidence -- Hearsay -- Trial court erred by precluding defendant from asking witness if anyone had shouted “I'm going to beat you up” based on determination that statement constituted hearsay -- Statement was not hearsay because statement was offered to prove its effect on defendant and defendant's state of mind, not for the truth of the matter asserted -- Neither the denial of requested jury instruction nor exclusion of evidence constituted harmless error -- Remand for new trial
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal law -- Firearms -- Open carry -- Loaded handgun on seat of vehicle observed during traffic stop -- Dismissal -- Traverse by state -- Trial court erred in dismissing defendant's oral motion to dismiss count charging defendant with open carrying of weapon in violation of section 790.053, Florida Statutes (2022), where defendant had not filed a written motion at any time prior to dismissal and no good cause was shown that would permit trial court to waive requirement that motion be in writing -- Oral motion precluded state from placing its position or sworn version of facts before court as contemplated by Rule 3.190(d) -- Further, it is clear that defendant would not have moved to dismiss ore tenus without prompting by trial court over state's objection
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal law -- Murder -- Attempted murder -- Evidence -- Rap videos -- Jury instructions -- Independent act -- Defendant convicted as principal on multiple counts of second degree murder and attempted first-degree murder based on his role as lookout sent to “peep” banquet hall where mass shooting occurred and to make sure intended victims were present so that his associates could shoot them -- Trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing state to introduce rap video where video tended to disprove defendant's trial defense by showing that he was aware of violent and criminal nature of his associate's designs -- In Florida, rap videos are admissible in criminal trials when they describe events close to the crime charged, contradict defendant's statements or defense, or otherwise help to explain factual context of charged crime and/or motives that drove it -- Trial court did not err in refusing to give independent act jury instruction where there was no evidence in record suggesting that defendant planned with anyone to commit a lesser crime that got away from him when another participant embarked on an act not contemplated by the plan
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal law -- Probation -- Conditions -- Discrepancies between language of written order and underlying statutes -- Condition prohibiting defendant from visiting places where intoxicants, drugs, or other dangerous substances are unlawfully sold, dispensed, or used to be amended to prohibit defendant from “knowingly” visiting those places -- Condition requiring defendant to work diligently at lawful occupation to the best of defendant's ability to be modified to track more closely the standard condition that a defendant work diligently at lawful occupation insofar as may be possible -- Requirement that defendant advise employer of her probationary status is special condition of probation which must be stricken where condition was not orally pronounced -- Discussion of distinction between standard and special conditions of probation
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal law -- Sentencing -- Violent career criminal -- Qualifying offenses -- Felon in possession of ammunition -- Trial court committed fundamental error by relying on presentence investigation report in determining that defendant's prior conviction for felon in possession of ammunition involved a firearm and, therefore, qualified as a “felony violation of chapter 790 involving the use or possession of a firearm” under the VCC statute -- Aside from the fact that the PSI report was not introduced into evidence, no legal justification existed for trial court to look beyond certified copy of judgment that clearly and unambiguously listed the crime of conviction as felon in possession of ammunition only and included the statute numbers -- Furthermore, conviction for felon in possession of ammunition does not qualify as a “felony violation of chapter 790 involving the use or possession of a firearm” for purposes of VCC sentencing as a matter of law because offense can be committed in a manner that does not involve the use or possession of a firearm -- Among the enumerated section 790 crimes which are qualifiers for VCC sanction imposition, only those which, by their elements, concern felony use or possession of firearms are applicable
VIEW OPINION (login required)