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 -- Public employees -- Actions against law enforcement or correctional officers -- Employer's payment of attorney's fees and costs or provision of attorney -- Torts -- Deputy sheriff who was assigned as school resource officer at high school, criminally charged in connection with mass shooting at the school, and acquitted of all charges by jury was not entitled to reimbursement of his defense fees from his employing agency under section 111.065 where he failed to timely submit a statutorily compliant application with an itemization statement to employing agency and failed to timely file his application in the trial court within 30 days after termination of the criminal action -- Statute sets forth clear, mandatory, and textually precise framework governing claims for reimbursement of attorney's fees by law enforcement officers
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Civil procedure -- Class actions -- Definition of class -- Condominiums -- Trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting class certification to class of tenants and occupants who lawfully resided in a condominium unit at defendant-condominium on date that they were displaced by a fire that destroyed the condominium -- Class definition was sufficient for class certification
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Civil procedure -- Vexatious Litigant Act -- Appeals -- Non-final order declaring pro se plaintiff a vexatious litigant under section 68.093, which among other things required plaintiff to post $10,000 security in order to continue to prosecute his “civil negligence action,” was in the nature of an injunction and is reviewable under rule 9.130(a)(3)(B) -- Order affirmed where transcript was not provided and no error was found in appellate court's review of record
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Dissolution of marriage -- Alimony -- Attorney's fees -- Temporary awards -- Written findings -- Necessity -- Appeals -- Challenge to nonfinal order granting wife temporary alimony and temporary attorney's fees and costs on ground that trial court did not make findings required by statutes and that there was insufficient evidentiary support for either award -- A party is expressly permitted to appeal a nonfinal order granting temporary alimony and attorney's fees and must do so within 30 days of rendition of the order -- Because of this limited window for an appeal, there is no obligation to file a motion for reconsideration following an award of temporary alimony or attorney's fees prior to appealing that award based on the lack of required findings -- However, parties are encouraged to immediately file motions for reconsideration in the trial court because bringing fact-finding defect to trial court's attention at the time the decision is made allows trial court to correct omission while case is fresh in his or her mind -- If it becomes necessary to file an interlocutory appeal without a ruling on a motion for reconsideration, appellant may request appellate court to relinquish jurisdiction in order for trial court to have additional time to reconsider its nonfinal order -- Temporary alimony -- Written findings were required to support award of temporary alimony under current alimony statute -- Court's prior holding in Williams v. Williams that section 61.08, which requires factual findings, did not apply to an award of temporary alimony is distinguished to extent that Williams relied on prior version of statute -- As amended subsequent to Williams, section 61.08 now requires that award of temporary alimony be supported by written findings of fact that party seeking temporary alimony has actual need for it in the amount to be awarded and that the opposing party has ability to pay that amount -- Amended statute is not at odds with section 61.071, which allows a court to award “a reasonable sum” for temporary alimony if petition or motion is “well founded” -- Temporary alimony award reversed given absence of required findings -- Temporary attorney's fees -- Section 61.16 authorizes trial court to order one party to pay another party's reasonable attorney's fees after considering financial resources of both parties and other factors appropriate to providing justice and ensuring equity between the parties -- Although statute does not expressly require written findings, court concludes that trial court must make findings on statutory factors, including need, ability to pay, and reasonableness, and may make other equitable findings to explain the temporary award it orders -- Reasonableness of fees -- Analysis and findings of reasonableness factors set forth in Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Rowe is not required for temporary awards -- To extent a party contends temporary award is not reasonable under Rowe factors, party may challenge lack of Rowe findings following final judgment through a motion for rehearing -- Award of fees under section 61.16 must include specific findings of fact on the record to support and explain the ruling -- In case at issue, trial court failed to sufficiently make findings on need, ability to pay, and reasonableness to support temporary award of $50,000 -- Moreover, record evidence was insufficient to establish reasonableness of award where counsel's fee affidavit was not admitted into evidence before hearing time expired
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Eminent domain -- Inverse condemnation -- Florida Wildlife Commission -- Suspension or revocation of permits -- Sovereign immunity -- Exceptions -- Claim based on constitutional violation -- Action seeking compensation for what plaintiffs characterize as unconstitutional taking arising from FWC's suspension or revocation of Authorized Gopher Tortoise Agent permits issued to plaintiffs -- Trial court erred in denying FWC's motion for summary judgment on ground that inverse condemnation claim was barred by sovereign immunity where plaintiffs did not plead a legally sufficient constitutional claim as required to trigger exception to sovereign immunity -- Permits at issue did not bear hallmarks of compensable property where they allowed specified gopher-tortoise survey and relocation activities under FWC's regulatory scheme; were nontransferable; did not confer exclusive rights; were subject to applicable statutes, rules, guidelines, applications, assurances, and permit conditions; and were expressly subject to FWC's authority to suspend, revoke, or decline renewal for just cause
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Foreign judgments -- Domestication -- Florida Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act -- Judgment debtor can file an action challenging a domesticated judgment more than 30 days after its recording and without seeking a stay of enforcement under section 55.509 of FEFJA -- Trial court erred in dismissing judgment debtor's complaint based solely on failure to meet section 55.509 conditions for a stay and in conditioning maintenance of action on compliance with statute's stay conditions
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Insurance -- Homeowners -- Water damage -- Coverage -- Additional coverages -- Debris removal -- Reasonable emergency measures -- Under Florida law, assignee who was hired to perform reasonable emergency services was not entitled to separate compensation for debris removal -- Summary judgment in favor of insurer on assignee's claim for debris removal services affirmed
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Insurance -- Property -- Attorney's fees -- Appellate -- Amount -- Trial court abused its discretion in awarding full amount of appellate attorney's fees sought, which primarily related to preparation of single answer brief -- Testimony supporting fees expert's conclusion that more than ninety hours devoted to that work was reasonable given the complexity and significance of the underlying issue was largely generalized and conclusory -- While quality of finished work product, the importance of the legal issue, and post hoc discussions with counsel concerning the litigation strategy may bear on the overall significance of the litigation, such considerations did not independently establish that the hours claimed were reasonably and necessarily expended -- Billing records did not cure deficiency where several entries were broadly described as work on the “answer brief” without adequate detail regarding the specific tasks performed -- Testimony regarding overlap with similar litigation also undermined evidentiary basis for award where record contains insufficient evidence demonstrating that trial court adequately distinguished between genuinely case-specific appellate work and legal analysis substantially derived from parallel litigation involving materially similar issues
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Insurance -- Settlement agreement -- Enforcement -- Attorney's fees -- Florida Insurance Guaranty Association -- Settlement agreement between insureds and insolvent insurer requiring one check be issued to insureds and another check be issued to insureds' law firm -- Trial court erred in ordering FIGA to issue a check to insureds' law firm as part of negotiated settlement -- FIGA was not responsible for settlement amount dedicated to insureds' attorney's fees because attorney's fees were not part of the “covered claim” statutorily mandated to be paid by FIGA -- Court rejects argument that FIGA cannot establish that check is for attorney's fees because settlement agreement does not expressly indicate what the check is for -- Given that complaint requested attorney's fees and release expressly stated that insureds would release any claims for attorney's fees as part of settlement, there is no other conceivable explanation for the separate check to the law firm
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Mortgage foreclosure -- Standing -- Lost note -- Trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiff where there was factual issue as to plaintiff's standing to seek foreclosure -- Plaintiff admittedly was not in actual possession of note when it filed foreclosure complaint and, accordingly, was obligated to meet statutory requirements for re-establishment of lost note set out in section 673.3091 -- Statutory requirements may be met either through lost note affidavit or testimony from a person with knowledge, and it is incumbent upon party enforcing note to establish an unbroken chain of assignments, which plaintiff failed to do
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Municipal corporations -- Public officials -- Pensions -- Ordinances -- Repeal of ordinance -- Action brought by former elected officials seeking declaration that officials had vested rights in retirement system benefits and that city had infringed on those rights by repealing retirement system's enacting ordinance and stopping payments -- Court rejects city's argument that officials' service must have occurred after enactment of retirement system ordinance to qualify -- By using present perfect tense in ordinance, city omitted any temporal restriction to service requirements -- Interpreting ordinance as applying to those who served prior to ordinance's enactment does not result in improper retroactive application of ordinance -- Awarding pension benefits to former officials who were still serving when initial ordinance was enacted does not violate section 215.425 -- Discussion of the history of section 215.425 and the meaning of “extra compensation” -- Statute prohibits public officers from receiving additional remuneration, over and above what was contracted for or fixed by law, for services rendered -- “Extra compensation” remains permissible so long as it is negotiated before the service in question has been fully performed -- Pensions for officials who were retired and no longer serving at time of initial ordinance's enactment violate section 215.425 because pensions had not become part of their compensation before their service had been performed -- Equitable estoppel -- Trial court erred in determining that city was equitably estopped from denying benefits to officials who had retired prior to initial ordinance's enactment -- Estoppel does not apply in transactions that are forbidden by statute
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Probate Rules -- Amendment -- Adversary proceedings -- Curators -- Petition for administration -- Oath of Personal Representative -- Ancillary administration
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Torts -- Slander of title -- Real property -- Lis pendens -- Wrongful filing -- Litigation privilege -- Dissolution of marriage -- Enforcement of child support and alimony awards -- Former wife was not allowed to file a lis pendens on former husband's home based on pending family law enforcement proceedings -- Discussion of lis pendens law -- Property that might eventually be subject to foreclosure to satisfy a judgment, even in a family law enforcement proceeding for alimony and child support, without more, cannot be properly subjected to lis pendens -- Section 61.11, which permits court to award an injunction when a party is about to remove himself or herself or property out of the state, is inapplicable where there is no plausible suggestion that former husband was about to remove himself or the house out of the state, or that he was about to fraudulently convey or conceal the house; rather, former husband was listing the house on the open market through a realtor -- Concern about former husband's use of sale proceeds after closing did not authorize a pre-sale lis pendens clouding title to house -- Trial court erred in granting motion to dismiss former husband's complaint on ground that lis pendens was proper -- Litigation privilege does not provide former wife's attorney immunity for the filing of the improper lis pendens
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 -- Carrying concealed firearm -- Section 790.06(2)(b), which disqualifies law-abiding adults aged 18 to 20 from being able to satisfy the criteria for concealed carry that is available to other law-abiding adults, is facially unconstitutional as it relates to 18- to 20-year-olds -- All those in age of majority have the same rights to public carry, which includes the right to concealed carry -- Extensive discussion of federal and state Second Amendment case law
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal law -- Murder -- Death penalty -- Post conviction relief -- Newly discovered evidence -- Trial court did not err by summarily denying second successive post conviction motion claiming that jailhouse informant's testimony during defendant's federal habeas proceeding revealed newly discovered evidence of prosecutorial misconduct during defendant's murder trial -- Claims were untimely where defendant's judgment became final over thirty years ago and claims became discoverable through due diligence more than a year before defendant filed his motion -- Claims were also procedurally barred where informant-related claims were raised and rejected in his initial post conviction proceeding -- Court rejects argument that state thwarted defendant's previous efforts to raise informant-related claims because it allegedly threatened informant with perjury charges if he testified differently at defendant's initial post conviction evidentiary hearing than he did at defendant's trial -- Informant was not threatened when he was made aware of the risk of criminal liability if he elected to change earlier sworn testimony
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal law -- Murder -- Death penalty -- Post conviction relief -- Successive motion -- Newly discovered evidence -- Post conviction court did not err in summarily denying third successive rule 3.851 motion claiming that defendant was entitled to new trial or new penalty phase based on newly discovered evidence demonstrating that human brain is not fully developed by 18 years of age and continues to develop into an individual's twenties, thereby rendering his convictions for murders committed when he was 22 years old suspect and ineligible for the death penalty -- Post conviction court did not err in denying claim of cumulative error which was based on contention that this newly discovered evidence compounded other errors in defendant's case, as arguments in support of this claim were either previously denied or procedurally barred -- Evidentiary hearing -- Post conviction court correctly focused on timeliness of motion when determining whether evidentiary hearing was required where motion was filed more than two years after judgment and sentence became final and defendant did not demonstrate that newly discovered evidence was unknown at time of trial or could not have been discovered through due diligence, or that evidence was of such nature that it would probably yield a less severe sentence on retrial -- To extent defendant challenged trial court's decision not to consider his “mental age” as mitigating circumstance, that issue should have been raised on direct appeal -- Further, court has routinely held that resolutions and reports such as the ones relied upon by defendant do not constitute newly discovered evidence -- Discussion of initial and successive rule 3.851 pleading requirements and evidentiary standards
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal law -- Sentencing -- Downward departure -- Appeals -- Jurisdiction -- A district court has jurisdiction to review a trial court's decision not to grant a downward departure sentence
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Probate Rules -- Amendment -- Adversary proceedings -- Curators -- Petition for administration -- Oath of Personal Representative -- Ancillary administration
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal law -- Tampering with witness -- Sentencing -- Second amended information, which charged two counts of witness tampering as third-degree felonies, omitted essential element of offense where information failed to allege the degree of the offense involved in underlying official proceeding in which witness tampering occurred as required by section 914.22 and as reflected in standard jury instruction -- Omission was not trivial since this element is expressly identified in statute and standard jury instruction as a required element state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, and the category of underlying proceeding directly determines the level of the felony the tampering constituted -- Error did not preclude trial court from imposing first-degree felony sentences for these counts where specific facts of case demonstrate that pre-trial colloquy constituted an effective oral amendment to the information -- Because information was effectively amended prior to trial, the required element was part of operative charging framework before jury was sworn -- Further, defendant was personally, unambiguously, and repeatedly advised of the first-degree felony consequences before trial began, and defendant's counsel shaped defense in accordance with the orally amended charges -- Probation -- Conditions -- Trial court erred by including in written probation order a special condition prohibiting defendant from having contact with victim's family where that condition was not orally pronounced at sentencing
VIEW OPINION (login required)