![]() |
|||
![]() Research Associates, Inc. |
|
LOG IN CONTACT Toll-free: 800-351-0917 E-mail us Submit Opinions PLACE AN ORDER Print Editions Online Editions Bound Volumes 2/24-Hour Online Access OUR PUBLICATIONS Florida Law Weekly FLW Supplement FLW Federal Collected Cases Sample FLW Online RESEARCH Cross Citations Week In Review Rule Revisions Review Granted Current Issue Index Civil Section Criminal Section 2024 Cumulative Index Civil Section Criminal Section Public Reprimands Florida Statutes Helpful Links |
![]() February 10, 2025 - February 14, 2025
Civil Law Headnotes (Jump to Criminal Law Headnotes)
THESE ARE NOT ALL OF THE CASES RELEASED BY THE COURTS FOR THE WEEK.
Administrative law -- Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan -- For claim to be compensable under plan, parents must demonstrate, at a minimum, that infant suffered brain-related neurological injury that resulted in permanent and substantial mental and physical impairment -- Administrative judge erred in finding that parents were entitled to compensation where record did not contain competent evidence of an evaluation showing that infant's cognitive, social, or vocational abilities were impaired at time of final hearing -- Detailed discussion
Contracts -- Real property sale -- Disclosure -- Flood history -- Action alleging that sellers had breached contract for sale of property by failing to disclose property's entire flood history and by describing the damage from the single flood event they had disclosed as “slight” -- Trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of sellers based on determination that, because the property was located in an open and obvious flood-prone zone, sellers were under no duty to disclose the flood-prone nature of the property -- Sellers were required to disclose any facts of which they had actual knowledge that were not known to buyer, not readily observable, and which would materially affect value of property -- While neighborhood was in a flood-prone zone, not every home in the neighborhood had sustained flooding, and it was unreasonable to expect buyer to assume the specific property he purchased had an extensive flood history -- A jury could conclude sellers knew that the flood event they did disclose, which resulted in a payment of $30,000 from sellers' flood insurer, was more than “slight water damage” -- Record also supports finding that the sellers were made aware of property's entire flood history because they were given a copy of a FEMA flood history report when they had purchased the property from a previous owner -- Extent of disclosed flood event and the prior undisclosed flood events was not readily observable to buyer -- The property's proximity to Tampa Bay and the flood-prone nature of the neighborhood are not “readily observable” conditions that would absolve seller of disclosing known flood events under Johnson v. Davis -- Omission or concealment of prior floods and property's status as a “repetitive loss” property was not immaterial
Corporations -- Transfer of ownership interest -- Validity -- Action asserting claims for declaratory judgment, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, and statutory records-inspection violations -- Indispensable party -- Entity to which ownership interest was transferred -- Trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiff where there existed genuine dispute of material fact as to whether transferee was indispensable party to suit
Counties -- Ordinances -- Developments of regional impact -- Modification or revision of DRI development orders -- Public notice -- Trial court reversibly erred in granting summary judgment in favor of developer in suit brought by homeowner challenging process by which county amended DRI DO on ground that county failed to comply with special public notice requirements applicable to development agreements and DRIs -- Grant of summary judgment in favor of developer based on conclusion that no new round of notifications was required under section 125.66(4), which outlines minimum procedures a county must follow to make certain zoning changes through ordinance enactment process, was improper, because compliance with section 125.66(4) was not an issue before the court -- Further, contrary to trial court's conclusion, revised ordinance constituted substantial and material change in original ordinance, thereby triggering the special public notice requirements under section 163.3225, because the revised ordinance settled a lawsuit between homeowners association, county, and developer -- Trial court reversibly erred in denying homeowner's cross-motion for summary judgment without addressing actual claims raised in the cross-motion
Mortgage foreclosure -- Affirmative defense -- Laches -- Action filed ten years after default and approximately a week after property had been purchased at a judicial foreclosure sale stemming from a city code enforcement lien -- Trial court abused its discretion in entering final judgment in favor of purchaser based on conclusion that doctrine of laches applied because mortgagee unreasonably delayed initiating its foreclosure action -- Discussion of laches -- A cause of action for foreclosure accrues on maturity date of loan unless lender elects to accelerate at an earlier date -- It cannot be said that mortgagee unreasonably delayed initiating its suit when there were more than sixteen years remaining before loan's maturity -- Fact that mortgagee had previously filed a foreclosure action that was dismissed and waited nearly ten years to file instant action is irrelevant because terms of mortgage contained a nonwaiver provision and because loan had not matured -- Furthermore, purchaser failed to prove the lack of knowledge and prejudice elements of laches -- Purchaser cannot establish that he lacked knowledge where purchaser acknowledged that he was aware of mortgage when property was purchased -- Knowledge of the contents of the mortgage is imputed to a purchaser -- Purchaser cannot establish that he was prejudiced where purchaser admitted that he was unaware of prior foreclosure actions -- If unaware of prior foreclosure actions, purchaser had no reason to believe the mortgagee was failing to exercise its legal rights -- While purchaser made substantial repairs to the property and had paid taxes and insurance on it, purchaser did those things at his own risk
Municipal corporation -- Elections -- Candidates -- Qualifying forms -- Scrivener's errors -- Injunctions -- Trial court did not err in denying plaintiff's emergency motion for injunctive relief seeking to compel city and supervisor of elections to include plaintiff's name on ballot in upcoming election after plaintiff mistakenly indicated he was running as a write-in candidate on his qualifying papers -- Court rejects argument that city elections do not allow write-in candidates because section 99.093 specifically addresses municipal candidates and makes no reference to write-in candidates -- Statute only addresses election assessment fees and is irrelevant to issue of qualifying papers for municipal write-in candidates -- Court rejects argument that plaintiff's “scrivener's error” should be excused because he substantially complied with statutory requirements for qualifying as a candidate -- Substantial compliance does not apply to substantive statements in election qualifying papers -- No authority allows an election clerk to ignore the substantive information which a candidate puts on qualifying forms or allows a trial court to re-write a candidate's substantive statements and selections on the qualifying forms -- Trial court properly found that plaintiff had shown his intent to qualify as a write-in candidate, city took all reasonable action to accept the clear intent of plaintiff, and city clerk properly performed her ministerial duties under section 99.061 when qualifying plaintiff as a write-in candidate
Rules of Juvenile Procedure -- Amendment -- Detention petition and order -- Forms -- Detention order -- Disposition order-delinquency -- Response to 2024 legislation
Torts -- Automobile accident -- Evidence -- Settlement -- New trial required where trial court permitted testimony concerning property damage settlement between the parties, a violation of section 90.408
Torts -- Defamation -- Conspiracy -- Jurisdiction -- Non-residents -- Tortious act -- Website postings -- Action brought against non-resident members of an unincorporated association alleging conspiracy and defamation in relation to a public statement posted on association's website -- Trial court did not err in concluding that exercise of personal jurisdiction over non-resident members of association was proper where operative complaint sufficiently pled causes of action against defendants, defendants issued public statement on association's website in response to requests from a Florida resident, and the meeting in which statement was discussed and prepared was attended remotely by a resident association member who also conducted an editing review of the proposed statement while in Florida
Torts -- Trespass resulting in negative contamination of property -- Punitive damages -- Corporations -- Roadway contractor's use of plaintiff's property as project staging area without plaintiff's consent and, allegedly, with city's tacit approval -- Trial court erred in granting motion to add claim for punitive damages against corporation where plaintiff's showing did not satisfy requirements of section 768.72(3), which governs punitive damages claims against a corporate entity -- Plaintiff was required not only to allege and proffer evidence of a corporate employee's intentional misconduct or gross negligence, but also to allege and proffer evidence that the corporation either participated in its employee's conduct, condoned, ratified, or consented to employee's conduct, or itself engaged in the conduct -- Plaintiff failed to meet these requirements
Wrongful death -- Automobile accident -- Rear-end collision -- Summary judgment -- Decedent killed when the vehicle he was riding in struck the rear of a tractor trailer driven by defendant after defendant had abruptly braked to avoid hitting another vehicle which had pulled out in front of him -- Trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of defendant based on finding that plaintiff had failed to produce any evidence to rebut presumption that driver of decedent's vehicle was negligent, none of defendant's actions could constitute negligence, and there was no evidence of a deficiency in the trailer's lighting -- Presumption of rear-driver negligence bears only upon causal negligence of the rear driver and does not speak to or touch upon any factual or legal issue regarding negligence of the front driver -- Evidence revealed genuine issue of material fact regarding whether taillights and brake lights on defendant's trailer were working at time collision occurred where, although defendant testified that he had performed a pre-trip inspection of the lights, other drivers who witnessed collision testified that they never saw any lights on trailer prior to collision -- By ignoring witnesses' unequivocal testimony that they saw impact and never saw any lights on trailer, trial court impermissibly weighed and considered credibility of their testimony -- Even presuming trailer lights were illuminated, there was genuine issue of material fact regarding whether defendant used reasonable care to avoid collision with decedent's car
Wrongful death -- Product liability -- Evidence -- Expert -- Action alleging strict liability and negligent failure to warn and maintain brought against machine rental company when a renter died of carbon monoxide poisoning on day he used rented machinery inside his auto repair garage -- Trial court did not err by denying defendant's motion to exclude opinions of medical expert and engineering expert stating that rented machinery was the source of the carbon monoxide that caused decedent's death despite fact that neither expert conducted any tests to rule out other sources of carbon monoxide -- Experts provided fact-based chain of reasoning sufficient for trial court to conclude that experts' testimony was admissible under Daubert standard -- No error in denying defendant's motion for directed verdict where properly admitted expert opinions were sufficient to allow jury to conclude that rented machinery was the source of the carbon monoxide that caused death -- Trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's motion for new trial asserting that engineering expert provided previously undisclosed opinions at trial regarding the cause of symptoms experienced by decedent's co-worker on date of decedent's death and the ventilation dynamics of decedent's garage -- Opinion regarding co-worker's symptoms was neither a new theory of case nor surprise expert opinion where engineering expert had testified during his deposition that he had attributed co-worker's symptoms to carbon monoxide exposure and identified that as evidence that carbon monoxide came from rented machinery -- While engineering expert's trial testimony that carbon monoxide became lethal after it “built up” throughout the day while garage was open could be seen as a new opinion given expert's deposition testimony that he would not provide an opinion that carbon monoxide “accumulated so as to become unsafe” with garage door open, deposition testimony could also be read as indicating that expert was not intending to provide an opinion regarding the level of carbon monoxide in parts per million Criminal Law Headnotes (Jump to Civil Law Headnotes)
THESE ARE NOT ALL OF THE CASES RELEASED BY THE COURTS FOR THE WEEK.
Criminal law -- Attempted murder -- Aggravated assault on law enforcement officer -- Discovery -- Medical records -- Appeals -- Certiorari -- Defendant, who allegedly attempted to stab her boyfriend, transported to hospital after being shot by police when she began walking toward officers with a knife -- Trial court departed from essential requirements of the law by authorizing state to serve subpoenas on hospital where defendant was treated and the paramedics who transported defendant which compelled production of defendant's blood analysis, toxicology analysis, and doctors' and paramedics' notes and observations -- State failed to show a nexus between medical records sought and some material issue in case -- Although state claimed that evidence sought could be relevant to a potential self-defense theory, arrest affidavits on which state exclusively relied did not say anything about any injury or threat of injury to defendant by the victim -- Affidavits did not support inference that defendant made incriminating statements to responding paramedics -- Furthermore, state neither attempted to identify particular elements of any of the charges for which medical records may be relevant, nor proved that requested records may include information relevant to those discrete elements -- Wrongful disclosure of medical records would cause irreparable harm
Criminal law -- Probation revocation -- New law violation -- Error to revoke defendant's probation based on his commission of grand theft of a motor vehicle where theft of vehicle predated defendant's probationary sentence -- Law does not permit revocation of probation for conduct occurring prior to entry of probation order -- Although trial court correctly determined that defendant had been committing grand theft during his probationary term by continuing to use the stolen vehicle, violation affidavit did not allege that defendant had violated his probation by committing grand theft on those dates -- Due process precludes revocation based on conduct that had not been alleged in violation affidavit
Criminal law -- Return of property -- Probation -- Conditions -- Possession of firearms and weapons -- Probationer prohibited from possessing, carrying, or owning any firearm or weapon -- Order denying probationer's motion seeking return of a muzzleloader rifle that was seized from him during search of his residence for probation violations is vacated -- Pursuant to section 790.001, probationer's black powder muzzleloader rifle qualified as an “antique firearm” because it employed an “early type of ignition system” -- Because muzzleloader was an antique and was not used in the commission of a crime, it did not qualify as a “firearm” -- Muzzleloader did not constitute a weapon where state presented no evidence that it had been used in a way likely to produce death or great bodily harm -- As muzzleloader was not a “firearm” or a “weapon,” defendant's possession of it did not violate his probation -- Although probation officer instructed defendant not to possess muzzleloader, probation officer's instruction could not redefine the term “weapon” or “firearm” -- Remand for state to be given opportunity to establish whether it intends to pursue forfeiture against the muzzleloader or whether it intends in good faith to bring another criminal prosecution at which muzzleloader would be admissible in evidence -- If state lacks either intention, probationer is entitled to return of muzzleloader
|