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.

Attorney's fees -- Charging lien -- Offer of judgment -- Entitlement to fees -- Motion to enforce charging lien filed by former counsel following settlement in underlying insurance dispute -- After granting plaintiff's motion to discharge charging lien, trial court did not err by denying plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees and costs under section 768.79 based on former counsel's rejection of plaintiff's offers of judgment -- Section 768.79 does not apply to a non-party's action to enforce an equitable charging lien -- A charging lien proceeding is not “a civil action for damages” as required by statute -- Court rejects argument that former counsel satisfied party requirement of statute because former counsel were “parties” to the ancillary proceeding -- Furthermore, statute requires a “defendant” to propound an offer of judgment, and plaintiff has always been a plaintiff in the proceeding -- Even if, as plaintiff argued, ancillary proceeding's nature changed plaintiff's role to “de facto defendant,” plain language of statute makes no provision for a “de facto plaintiff” or a “de facto defendant” in an ancillary proceeding
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Contracts -- Promissory notes -- Attorney's fees -- Entitlement -- Trial court erred by awarding plaintiff attorney's fees following its successful enforcement of promissory notes where plain language of notes only provided for payment of fees and costs if debt was accelerated, which did not happen in instant case -- While notices of default were sent to defendants, which was a prerequisite to acceleration under the note, plaintiff never actually took steps to require defendants to pay debt by filing litigation or otherwise pursuing accelerated debt payment of total due, choosing instead to file suit years later based on defendant's failure to pay as of maturity date -- Judicial estoppel -- Plaintiff is judicially estopped from arguing that it did accelerate debt where argument is inconsistent with what plaintiff successfully argued below and in prior appeal
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Forfeiture -- Currency -- Property used or likely to be used in criminal activity -- Burden of proof -- Trial court applied incorrect burden of proof in granting final summary judgment forfeiting thousands of dollars in U.S. currency seized from appellant's suitcase at a traveler checkpoint at international airport -- Trial court relied on outdated law by allowing government to meet its burden of proof merely by showing probable cause that the cash was illicitly used within the meaning of the forfeiture statute -- Forfeiture proceedings consist of both a probable cause stage and a trial stage where seizing agency must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the property has been used in violation of Forfeiture Act, and must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the owner knew or should have known that the property was being used in criminal activity
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Municipal corporations -- Contracts -- Bids -- Enforceability -- Attorneys' fees -- Trial court erred in determining that there was an enforceable contract between the parties which entitled plaintiff to attorney's fees -- There was no binding contract in absence of separate written agreement where the request for proposal issued by defendant specifically stated that defendant and proposer will be contractually bound “only if and when a written contract between the parties is executed” -- Defendant's selection of plaintiff did not create a contract between the parties -- Even if an enforceable contract existed, indemnification provision plaintiff relied upon did not provide a basis to award fees to plaintiff where provision does not clearly and unambiguously state that it applies to attorney's fees for suits between the parties
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Rules of Civil Procedure -- Amendment -- Setting action for trial -- Defaults and final judgments thereon
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Rules of Civil Procedure -- Forms -- Amendment -- Proposals for settlement -- Summons -- Forcible entry and detention
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Taxation -- Overpayments -- Refunds -- Stamp tax -- Intangible tax -- Exemptions -- Refinanced home loans -- Circuit court did not err in denying Department of Revenue's motion for summary judgment in action in which bank sought refund of overpayments of stamp and intangible taxes on thousands of refinanced home loan transactions -- With respect to stamp tax claims, bank presented sufficient evidence to create disputed issue on department's claim that new loans were “novations” in which bank discharged borrowers' original debts and entered into new, unconnected loan agreements with the borrowers -- Spreadsheet prepared by department when auditing 10% of the loans at issue, together with affidavit from bank's senior vice president/ home equity manager explaining and documenting how the loans were refinanced showed that bank refinanced loans that could qualify for the stamp tax exemption under § 201.09 -- Department's interpretation of provisions of statute requiring that new loan must be “renewal of old loan” or must “refinance” old loan in order to trigger entitlement to exemptions to stamp tax and intangible tax not basis for summary judgment -- Record contained substantial evidentiary support for the trial court's conclusion that borrowers' obligations under prior home loans were not satisfied but were extended and rolled into new mortgage-backed loans -- Department's argument that bank failed to show that it could meet statutory attachment and proper notation requirements not basis for summary judgment -- Discussion of attachment and notation requirement in context of mortgaged-back notes -- Department waived arguments involving the veracity and sufficiency of bank's summary judgment evidence by not making them below, as well as by agreeing in its summary judgment motion to use of spreadsheet sampling of loans as evidence in the case
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Trusts -- Trustees -- Accounting -- Constructive trust -- Limitation of actions -- Tolling of period -- Action for accounting and constructive trust alleging that trustee abused her fiduciary duties and used undue influence to convey trust property to herself -- Trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of trustee on accounting claim based on unsworn, post-litigation ledgers -- Documents lack the essential elements of a statutory accounting as they are not “reasonably understandable” reports and do not include statutorily required information -- Furthermore, documents were not provided annually as required -- The absence of sufficient annual accountings for over a decade establishes a per se breach of trust under section 736.1001(1) -- Argument that trial court improperly applied laches to beneficiary's accounting claim was not preserved for appeal -- However, because judgment is reversed for other reasons, beneficiary shall be given leave to amend her pleadings to raise issue on remand -- Trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of trustee on constructive trust claim where evidence showed that trustee effectively used trust assets to purchase real property in 2012 and then added her own name to the title as a joint tenant -- Such a self-dealing transaction was voidable under the Trust Code because it was neither authorized by the trust instrument nor approved by any court -- Court rejects argument that constructive trust claim was time barred -- Limitations period did not begin to run until beneficiary had actual knowledge of the facts, and evidence showed that beneficiary was elderly, illiterate, and entirely dependent on trustee for financial and legal matters -- Additionally, trustee's deliberate withholding of material information regarding the titling of the property constituted fraudulent concealment, which tolled the statute of limitations -- Public recording of property deed could not have commenced the running of any limitations period because constructive notice through public records is insufficient to establish the “actual knowledge” required by Chapter 736 -- Final judgment on trustees' counterclaims for partition and unjust enrichment are also reversed because bench trial was impacted by erroneous summary judgment favoring trustee
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 -- Arrest -- Bench warrant -- Failure to appear at arraignment -- Bench warrant for arrest of defendant for failure to appear at arraignment was improperly entered where attorney had previously filed written plea of not guilty and waiver of defendant's presence at arraignment, which pleadings were in the court file at the time of arraignment -- Contrary to court's conclusion, Rule 3.180(a)(2) does not require defendant's signature -- Defendant's presence at arraignment is deemed waived by filing of written plea of not guilty, even if it is not accompanied by a waiver of presence
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal law -- Violation of municipal ordinance -- Mens rea -- Necessity -- Trial court did not err in finding that appellant had violated city ordinance prohibiting persons from entering or remaining on beach during certain hours -- City was not required to prove mens rea where ordinance was silent on this element -- Ordinance at issue involves a “public welfare offense” where being on beach when it is closed is not in nature of positive aggressions or invasions, violation of ordinance results in no direct or immediate injury to persons or property, and penalty for violation is relatively small -- Because the ordinance at issue involves a “public welfare offense,” it does not require proof of mens rea
VIEW OPINION (login required)