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 -- Amount -- Trial court erred by using its findings as to reasonable hourly rate in fee judgment when calculating amount of charging lien where neither counsel's written retainer agreement nor billing records reflected that hourly rate -- On remand, trial court must determine what client owes counsel under their contract
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Attorney's fees -- Proposal for settlement -- Under 2018 statute applicable to instant case, proposal for settlement that requested a release was not enforceable where proposal did not attach or summarize terms of release
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Constitutional law -- Contracts -- Impairment -- Colleges and universities -- Direct support organizations -- Action by foundation that agreed to become certified direct-support organization of university pursuant to a memorandum of understanding alleging that amendments to Florida Excellence in Higher Education Act unconstitutionally impaired DSO's contractual right to make board appointments, and that rule adopted by Florida Board of Governors unconstitutionally impaired DSO's contractual right to control its budget -- Conditions precedent -- Waiver -- University waived any argument that case could not proceed based on DSO's failure to serve notice on attorney general as required by rule 1.071 when university requested that the trial court rule on the constitutional impairment issue -- Attorney general waived compliance with rule where record shows she was notified pursuant to rule 9.425 while matter was on appeal in district court and neither filed any briefs nor argued before the district court -- Discussion of contractual impairment and statutory and contract interpretation -- Amended section 1004.28(3), which required that all DSO board members be approved by the university, does not unconstitutionally impair parties' MOU, which provided that DSO's board of directors would have two appointees from university -- Approval and appointment powers are distinct, and MOU only speaks to university's appointment power -- Provision giving university two board appointments does not naturally read as an expression governing all other participation in the board appointment process or shaping of the board -- Court rejects argument that DSO's bylaws and articles of incorporation became part of MOU by virtue of section 617.0202(1)(d) -- Provisions that are included in a contract by operation of law are generally not subject to impairment analysis -- Applying section 1004.28(3) to MOU executed prior to statute's enactment does not constitute impermissible retroactive application -- To the extent that section 1004.28(3) impairs the MOU at all, statute does not unreasonably intrude into the parties' bargain to a degree greater than is necessary to achieve the objective of state oversight over DSOs -- Board of Governors regulation requiring DSO budgets be approved by the organization's governing board and the university board of trustees does not impair the MOU where MOU does not speak to budget, only distributions -- Power to approve budgets is distinct from discretion to distribute funds -- Even if budget approval power did impair DSO's contractual right over distributions, the relevant interests weigh in favor university
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Insurance -- Homeowners -- Bad faith -- Civil remedy notice -- Deficient notice -- Extracontractual damages -- Waiver -- Trial court erred by entering summary judgment in favor of insurer based on finding that CRN was deficient because it asked for extra-contractual damages in form of attorney's fees and costs -- Discussion of supreme court's decision in Talat Enterprise, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. -- Insurer waived argument that CRN was deficient for demanding extracontractual damages where insurer failed to raise issue in its response to CRN or any other time before arguing its motion for summary judgment four years later
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Municipal corporations -- Construction -- Permits and fees -- Excess revenue -- Retention -- Dismissal -- Action alleging that city violated 2019 amendments to Florida Building Codes Act by failing to rebate surplus building permitting and inspection fees which exceeded the average of city's operating budget for last four fiscal years -- Trial court erred by granting motion to dismiss claims seeking a refund of fees that were paid prior to effective date of 2019 amendments -- Section 553.80(7)(a)2 prohibits local governments from carrying forward surpluses after the effective date of the statute, and there is no exception for surpluses accumulated before the 2019 amendments' effective date -- While 2018 version of statute governed at the time the city collected disputed fees, that version does not govern the prospective retention and use of the funds post-collection -- Each local government must comply with the requirement imposed by the statute at the end of each fiscal year after the enactment
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Torts -- Defamation -- Conspiracy -- Multiple publication rule -- Dismissal -- Action for defamation and conspiracy to defame stemming from publication of a television series based on a book by plaintiff's former spouse which accused plaintiff of various criminal acts -- Trial court erred by granting motion to dismiss defamation claims based on determination that “docuseries” at issue was a single publication rather than multiple publications, that the series was not “of and concerning” plaintiff, and that the statements in the series were not capable of defamatory meaning -- Multiple publications occurred where each episode of series was a separate and distinct publication involving significantly different content, statements, and dialogue -- Additionally, episodes were released on different dates and a viewer could have watched one episode, or multiple episodes, without viewing entire series -- Episodes provided ample material indicating defamatory statements were “of and concerning” plaintiff where, although an alias was used and pictures of plaintiff's face were blurred through most of the series, plaintiff's real first name was used on two occasions -- Furthermore, it was not necessary that plaintiff be named in the publication where complaint, and the series itself, contained sufficient facts and references upon which to identify plaintiff -- In finding series was incapable of defamatory meaning, trial court erred by equating a “docuseries” with a “docudrama,” which dramatizes events based on fact -- A person viewing a “docuseries” which used actual news video clips and interviews would expect to see a show that dealt with actual factual events -- Trial court erred by relying on disclaimer that appeared at beginning of each episode stating that “[s]tatements expressed by individuals in this series should be taken as speculation or opinion and do not reflect the opinions or beliefs of the producers” -- Disclaimer was insufficient to shield defendants at dismissal stage of proceedings where disclaimer was directed only to the producers and made no mention of the other defendants, and, more importantly, did not inform the viewer that the series was fictional -- In finding that no “reasonable and common minded” viewer would understand former spouse's statements to be factual or credible, trial court improperly determined factual issues -- Trial court was required to accept all well-pled allegations as true when ruling on motion to dismiss -- Trial court erred by dismissing conspiracy claims where allegations were legally sufficient -- Plaintiff was not required to allege when the agreement to defame appellant was entered -- Conditions precedent -- Media defendants -- Presuit notice requirement of section 770.01 was not applicable because defendants were not media defendants -- Defendants were not media defendants because they were not engaged in the dissemination of news and information through the news and broadcast media
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Torts -- Jurisdiction -- Non-residents -- Engaging in business in state -- Tortious acts in state -- Trial court erred in dismissing, for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a cause of action, the initial complaint filed by plaintiff in an action against, among others, Cayman Islands-registered corporation, asserting various claims stemming from incident in which a phishing scam installed malware that allowed hackers to access plaintiff's digital wallet and steal bitcoin stored in wallet -- Long-arm statute -- Specific personal jurisdiction -- Plaintiff met initial pleading burden by tracking language of section 48.193(1) and alleging that corporate defendant engaged in business in Florida and was part of conspiracy to steal, launder, and dissipate plaintiff's bitcoin, with such tortious acts committed in Florida -- However, trial court failed to consider affidavit submitted by defendant in support of its motion to dismiss and its effect on burden-shifting framework mandated by the Florida Supreme Court in Venetian Salami Co. -- On remand, trial court to consider jurisdictional evidence to determine whether section 48.193 is satisfied -- Evidentiary hearing required if trial court finds that affidavits and evidence cannot be reconciled -- Civil procedure -- Plaintiff should have been provided opportunity to amend initial complaint
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Torts -- Premises liability -- Leased premises -- Third-party criminal misconduct -- Duty to warn -- Foreseeability -- Action filed by tenant who was shot by a third party alleging that landlord failed to warn tenant that a dangerous condition existed when it knew or reasonably should have known that the leased premises constituted a high crime area -- Trial court did not err by denying landlord's motion for a directed verdict on question of duty -- While a landowner does not generally owe a duty to protect against unforeseeable criminal misconduct on its property, landowner does owe a duty to protect an invitee from criminal acts of a third party where the invitee proves that the landowner had actual or constructive knowledge of prior, similar criminal acts committed upon invitees -- Given “special relationship” between a landlord and tenant, the landlord has a duty to protect a tenant from reasonably foreseeable criminal conduct by warning tenants about those foreseeable acts -- No error in denying motion for directed verdict on foreseeability issue as it relates to landlord's duty where, even ignoring evidence of crimes that took place on landlord's other properties which landlord admittedly knew about, there was evidence that many similar crimes had occurred in the neighborhood in the several years prior to the attack on plaintiff -- Jurors -- Misconduct -- Trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying motion for new trial asserting juror misconduct based on multiple jurors sharing notes about landlord's damages expert -- Although passing notes between jurors was improper and prejudice is presumed, presumption of prejudice was sufficiently rebutted by trial court's questioning of jurors and explicit instructions given by the trial court thereafter
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Wrongful death -- Jurisdiction -- Non-residents -- Waiver -- Trial court did not err by denying motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction based on determination that defendant had waived the right to assert defense by failing to timely assert defense in accordance with rule 1.140(b), and by seeking affirmative relief by filing a motion to enforce an alleged settlement agreement -- Court rejects argument that defendant should be permitted to raise defense because his prior counsel did not properly advise him of the availability of the defense -- If counsel negligently fails to carry out his duty and harm results to the client, there are readily available remedies
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Wrongful death -- Nursing homes -- Vicarious liability -- Complaint -- Amendment -- Punitive damages -- Corporate defendant -- Action alleging wrongful death and negligence after terminally ill resident at assisted living facility was found unresponsive with her head lodged between mattress and bedrail -- No error in denying plaintiff's motion for leave to amend complaint to assert claim for punitive damages against defendant owners, operators, and management company -- While insufficient staffing may support claim for punitive damages, the evidence was insufficient to establish intentional misconduct or gross negligence that would support the imposition of direct or vicarious liability on defendant entities -- Even if facility was understaffed as plaintiff alleged, there was no evidence that understaffing contributed to decedent's injury and death -- Court rejects argument that facility's decision to place decedent in a broken bed with unsafe bedrails warrants punitive damages where there was no evidence that managing agent of management company knew about the broken bed, or that defendant entities had that information -- Even if memory care director was informed of broken bed and failed to move decedent, his actions do not support direct or vicarious liability of defendant entities where director was, at best, a manager or midlevel employee -- Although facility may have been negligent in failing to implement a new care plan to address decedent's risk of falls, failure to implement plan did not demonstrate a conscious disregard or indifference to the life, safety, or rights of decedent -- Furthermore, nothing in record suggests defendant entities knew about facility's failure to implement plan
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.

No cases selected for this section this week.