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.

Civil procedure -- Dismissal -- Due process -- Appeal of order sua sponte dismissing complaint for failure to perfect service on corporate defendant within 120 days of filing after trial court found that substituted service on defendant's closing agent amounted to “lack of proper service” -- Trial court erred by dismissing complaint without giving plaintiff notice of trial court's intention to dismiss case based on its determination that service was improper and an opportunity to be heard on the issue -- Although trial court order had warned that failure to serve the defendants within the 120-day time of service required by rule 1.070(j) would result in dismissal absent the filing of a motion to extend service claiming good cause or excusable neglect, no motion for extension was filed because plaintiff ostensibly believed it had affected timely service on defendant via substitute service
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Civil procedure -- Dismissal -- Service of process -- Substituted service -- Torts -- Trial court erred in quashing service and dismissing amended complaint for failure to comply with 2022 version of section 48.161 where plaintiff served alias summons on Secretary of State after 2024 amendments to statute became effective -- Plaintiff filed affidavit of compliance within 40 days after service on Secretary of State, and affidavit contained sufficient facts showing that due diligence was exercised in attempting to locate and effectuate personal service on defendant -- Although plaintiff failed to serve defendant within 120 days of amending complaint, trial court was not required to dismiss on that basis, and dismissal order does not reflect that lack of timely service was basis for dismissal -- Reversed and remanded
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Creditors' rights -- Garnishment -- Bank accounts -- Spousal accounts -- Tenancy by the entirety -- A bank account opened by one spouse and later changed to a joint spousal account can be owned as a tenancy by the entireties and thus not be subject to garnishment by a creditor of only one spouse -- Discussion of Beal Bank, SSB v. Almand & Associates and 2008 amendment to section 655.79(1) -- Holding in Beal Bank is inapplicable to accounts initially opened by one spouse -- Section 655.79 authorizes a joint spousal account to be owned as a tenancy by the entireties even if the account was originally established by one spouse -- Fair reading of the language added by the 2008 amendment precludes interpreting the phrase “account made in the name of two persons who are husband and wife” to mean an account that was originally made in the name of two persons who are husband and wife
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Dissolution of marriage -- Marital settlement agreement -- Vacation -- Post-judgment motion -- Trial court did not err in denying wife's verified motion seeking to set aside marital settlement agreement on ground that agreement was unfair on its face and would “shock the conscience” because of her state of mind at time of agreement, lack of adequate financial disclosure, and alleged misinformation from husband -- Because final judgment dissolving marriage and incorporating marital settlement agreement was entered before motion was filed, wife was required to seek relief from judgment under rule 12.540 -- Wife failed to establish legally sufficient basis to set aside final dissolution judgment under rule 12.540 -- Court recedes from Suppa v. Suppa, which declined to apply rule 12.540 under similar circumstances -- Question certified: Does Macar v. Macar, 803 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 2001) require the trial court to apply Family Rule 12.540, rather than the “unfairness test” of Casto v. Casto, 508 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 1987), to the resolution of post-judgment litigation seeking to set aside a marital settlement agreement[,] that was entered into just prior to filing for divorce and with the specific intent to incorporate it into a final judgment of dissolution of marriage[,] where the parties did not engage in formal discovery or litigation before entry of final judgment?
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Insurance -- Homeowners -- Coverage -- Jurors -- Challenge -- Cause -- Trial court erred by denying insurer's for-cause challenge to prospective juror who raised his hand when asked whether he would review insurer's evidence with a more critical eye than he would the homeowners' and compared dispute between parties to tale of David and Goliath -- Erroneous denial of the for-cause challenge was not harmless -- Evidence -- Photographs -- Authentication -- Trial court abused its discretion by excluding photographs of property damage predating policy based on lack-of-predicate grounds -- Insurer authenticated the photographs pursuant to section 90.01 by asking homeowner if the photographs were fair and accurate representations of property -- Error in excluding photograph was not harmless
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Torts -- Counties -- Premises liability -- Trip and fall -- Water meters -- Knowledge of dangerous condition -- Constructive notice -- Action stemming from injuries suffered by plaintiff when she allegedly stepped into and fell through an uncovered county-owned water meter box -- Trial court erred by denying city's motion for directed verdict where plaintiff conceded that county did not have actual notice of the dangerous condition and evidence was insufficient to support finding of constructive notice -- Photograph of water meter box taken two months after incident depicting brown leaves inside the box provided no evidence that alleged condition existed for a sufficient length of time prior to plaintiff's fall -- Jury would have had to rely on improperly stacked inferences in order to conclude that county had constructive notice of condition based on brown leaves discovered in box months after the incident
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 -- Attempted second degree murder of law enforcement officer -- Altering firearm serial number -- Carrying concealed firearm -- Charges stemming from incident in which defendant allegedly pointed a firearm at an officer attempting to serve a violation of probation warrant, with said firearm eventually discharging during a struggle between defendant and officer -- Trial court did not err by denying defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal as to attempted second degree murder charge alleging that neither defendant's pointing of gun, nor its discharge during struggle, constituted attempted murder -- Defendant's brandishing a firearm, pointing it directly at officer's torso, and engaging in a violent struggle for the weapon that resulted in its discharge constituted acts imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life -- That the firearm discharged during the struggle underscores the imminently dangerous nature of defendant's actions, even if the firearm was not pointed at officer at the exact moment of discharge -- Defendant's subsequent attempt to rerack firearm after discharge is probative of his mental state during the earlier struggle with officer, providing further evidence that he harbored the requisite ill will, hatred, or evil intent to support the charge of attempted second-degree murder -- Evidence -- Statements of defendant -- Trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing state to introduce recorded statements defendant made during his argument on his motion for judgment of acquittal and during a jail call discussing that motion -- Statements in which defendant acknowledged possessing firearms, trying to get rid of the firearms, and attempting to run from police were relevant as they went directly to issues central to the charges, including knowledge, intent, and consciousness of guilt -- Probative value was not substantially outweighed by danger of unfair prejudice -- Although jurors might have inferred that defendant was “hiding” something by noting jury's absence in his statements, record does not support conclusion that this reference was inflammatory or misleading in a way that would lure the jury into convicting on an improper basis -- Cumulativeness alone was not a sufficient ground to exclude evidence -- Trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing officer to testify that he was attempting to serve a violation of probation warrant prior to criminal incident where defendant had opened door for such testimony -- By exhaustively questioning whether officer issued a “command” or “request,” and by eliciting testimony about the legal difference between consensual and nonconsensual encounters, defendant created misleading impression that the officers may not have been engaged in the lawful performance of a legal duty, which was an element of attempted second-degree murder of a law enforcement officer charge that was in dispute -- Impeachment -- Prior bad acts -- Trial court erred by allowing impeachment of defendant's shooting reconstruction expert with prior bad acts related to his termination from employment as a medical examiner and prosecution for evidence tampering where impeachment covered an area of expertise that had nothing to do with bulk of expert's testimony -- Error was harmless -- Dismissal -- Limitation of actions -- No error in denying motion to dismiss attempted murder charge on statute of limitations grounds arguing that amended information filed beyond limitations period could not relate back to timely filed information -- Court rejects argument that amended information's addition of the phrase “on one or more occasion” broadened the attempted second-degree murder count by rendering it “duplicitous” -- Jury instructions -- Lesser included offenses -- Trial court properly refused to allow defendant to selectively waive limitations defense for some lesser-included offenses while maintaining it for others -- Defendant was not entitled to limit the charged lesser-included offenses to those most favorable to him
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal law -- Evidence -- Videotaped interrogation -- Opinion testimony -- Trial court erred by admitting lengthy videotape of defendant's police interview in which officers repeatedly expressed their personal opinions about defendant's guilt and their belief that she was lying -- Admission of statements essentially permitted state to improperly elicit police opinion testimony and invade the province of the jury -- Error was not harmless where defendant's credibility was a feature of the trial
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal law -- Juveniles -- Grand theft of motor vehicle -- Property of another -- Dismissal -- Trial court erred by denying juvenile's motion for judgment of dismissal where state failed to prove ownership of the stolen vehicle -- A matching general description of the car recovered from juvenile to victim's stolen car and the temporal proximity of the recovery to when victim's car was stolen were insufficient, without additional identifying evidence, to establish that the car juvenile admitted to stealing was the vehicle he was charged with stealing
VIEW OPINION (login required)