Michael E. Allen

In Davis v. Davis, the court addressed whether a mobile home park operated on rural property outside a municipality qualified as part of the homestead under the Florida Constitution for purposes of estate distribution following the owner's death. The appellant sought to have the entire property declared homestead, which would prevent it from being devised by will and require it to pass according to intestacy laws favoring the surviving spouse. The court reversed the trial court's ruling that only the residential portion qualified, holding that the constitutional limit to the owner's residence applies solely to homesteads within municipalities. This conclusion was based on the plain language of article X, section 4, distinguishing between municipal and non-municipal properties, and consistent with interpretations of similar provisions in prior Florida constitutions.

propertyfamily law

In this direct criminal appeal, Joseph DeAngelo challenged his dual convictions for attempted premeditated murder and attempted felony murder arising from a single victim and episode, arguing they violated double jeopardy. The Florida First District Court of Appeal agreed, reversing the judgment in part and remanding for the trial court to vacate one conviction at the state's election. The court relied on the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Gordon v. State, which established that convictions for both premeditated murder and felony murder are impermissible for a single death and logically extends this bar to attempted versions of the crimes. Although the legislature had revived attempted felony murder under section 782.051(1), the court found no material distinction from the prior offense that would permit dual convictions under the Gordon principle.

criminal law

This case involved insurance agents who sued Blue Cross and related companies after their agency was terminated, claiming fraud in the inducement regarding promises made about compensation and agency status, reformation of their agreement, and antitrust violations. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants on all remaining claims. On appeal, the Florida First District Court of Appeal reversed as to the fraud and reformation claims, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding fraudulent intent (which can be proven circumstantially) and the parties' true intent despite a merger clause, but affirmed the dismissal of the antitrust claim due to lack of supporting evidence. The court applied de novo review, emphasizing that summary judgment is improper if any doubt exists about material facts.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

In this workers' compensation case, claimant Gregory Mitchell appealed an order denying his request for an attorney's fee under section 440.34(3)(b), Florida Statutes, after the carrier initially denied his petition for permanent total disability benefits but later accepted the claim following mediation and began making retroactive payments. The District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, reversed the denial and remanded the case. The court held that the claimant satisfied the statutory requirements for a fee award because the carrier's notice of denial (or its procedural equivalent through failure to respond to the amended petition) and the attorney's successful prosecution of the claim via acceptance and payment met the criteria of the 1996 version of the statute. The court reasoned that mediation leading to acceptance constituted successful prosecution without needing separate proof of the merits, such as the exact date of maximum medical improvement, in this context.

labor & employmentprocedure

In Nedeau v. Gallagher, two participants in Florida's Government Employees' Deferred Compensation Plan sued the state's Chief Financial Officer and the State, seeking recovery of administrative fees assessed under contracts with investment providers, arguing the assessments lacked statutory authority. The trial court granted summary judgment against them, and the District Court of Appeal affirmed. The court held that the appellants lacked standing to pursue the claim because the investment providers, who were parties to the relevant contracts, were not joined in the action, and the appellants were not the real parties in interest whose relief would directly result from a successful challenge. The reasoning centered on the principle that standing requires a sufficient stake in the controversy and that claims should be brought by or on behalf of the real party in interest.

procedurelabor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The case involved an appellant's challenge to the Unemployment Appeals Commission's dismissal of her administrative appeal from a referee's decision denying unemployment benefits, on grounds that her request for redetermination was not timely filed within the 20-day statutory period. The Commission found after an evidentiary hearing that the appellant's faxed appeal was not received by the deadline, and the majority of the court affirmed this determination. The court reasoned that the finding was supported by competent substantial evidence, including the appellant's testimony about problems with her fax machine and the lack of proof that any timely transmission was actually completed and received by the agency. A dissenting opinion argued that a presumption of delivery applied based on the appellant's unrebutted testimony and phone records showing a call on the relevant date.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case concerned a dispute over title to real property that Delta Property Management had owned before losing it in a tax sale after failing to pay ad valorem taxes. Profile Investments purchased the property at the sale and sued to quiet title, while Delta counterclaimed that the sale was invalid due to improper notice mailed to an outdated address from the 1999 tax roll. The trial court granted summary judgment to Profile, and the appellate court affirmed, ruling that under sections 197.502(4) and 197.522(1), Florida Statutes, the clerk of court satisfies the notice requirement by mailing to the address listed in the tax collector's statement based on the latest assessment roll at the time the statement is prepared. The court further held that the clerk has no duty to search for or use a more recent roll, and that non-receipt of notice does not affect the validity of the tax deed.

taxesproperty

The case involved consolidated appeals challenging a trial court order that approved a ballot summary for a proposed constitutional amendment, House Joint Resolution 833, to be placed on the November 5, 2002, general election ballot; the amendment would create a joint legislative committee to review and potentially deauthorize exemptions and exclusions from the sales and use tax. The District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, reversed the trial court order and directed that the ballot title and summary be stricken from the ballot. The court held that the summary did not satisfy the requirements of Article XI, section 5 of the Florida Constitution and section 101.161(1), Florida Statutes, because it misstated the plain meaning of the amendment by suggesting the committee would only make recommendations rather than exercise authority to deauthorize exemptions, and because it inaccurately described the effective date of committee resolutions.

electionstaxes

In DB v. State, a juvenile appellant challenged his delinquency adjudication and probation revocations, which were based on alleged violations of section 790.163, Florida Statutes, for statements threatening to 'blow up' or 'burn down' his school in the future. The District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, reversed the adjudication and revocations. The court reasoned that the statute criminalizes only false reports of a bomb or explosive already placed or planted, such as bomb scare hoaxes, and does not cover threats of future action. It distinguished the threats from the statutory language by reference to the statute's purpose and a similar Maryland case interpreting comparable wording.

criminal law

In Bates v. State, the appellant challenged the denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence, claiming a double jeopardy violation. He had been convicted of felony battery under section 784.03(2), Florida Statutes (1996), based on two prior battery convictions, and then sentenced as a habitual offender. The court affirmed the trial court's order, holding that the felony battery conviction constitutes a separate substantive offense rather than a mere enhancement of misdemeanor battery. This conclusion followed the Florida Supreme Court's precedent in Gayman v. State, which rejected similar double jeopardy claims involving the analogous felony petit theft statute. The court found no violation in applying the habitual offender sentence after the felony classification.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a property developer that sued Leon County after the county adopted new stormwater and commercial development ordinances imposing a moratorium and stricter standards on land in the Bradfordville area, where the developer owned commercially zoned property. The developer sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the county from applying the new rules, arguing that it had relied on prior zoning and was entitled to estoppel. The trial court granted summary judgment in the developer's favor, ruling that the county was estopped from enforcing the new ordinances and sector plan. The appellate court reversed, holding that disputed issues of material fact remained as to whether the developer had shown the exceptional circumstances needed for zoning estoppel against a government entity, including reasonable detrimental reliance on the prior zoning, and that summary judgment was therefore improper.

propertybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a Medicaid recipient's lawsuit against the State of Florida seeking a share of settlement proceeds the state obtained from tobacco companies for Medicaid costs related to smoking-related illnesses. The plaintiff claimed statutory entitlement under federal and state Medicaid recovery laws to excess funds above the state's costs. The trial court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, and the appellate court affirmed. The court reasoned that the distribution scheme for excess proceeds applies only to derivative state actions based on assignment or subrogation from recipients, not to the state's direct independent claims, and that the tobacco settlement was of the latter type with no excess recovery assigned to the state. Federal and state exclusions for such settlements further confirmed the plaintiff had no right to any share.

healthcarefederal power

The case involved Thomas Brazeail's appeal from the trial court's summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief after he pleaded guilty to offenses and received a negotiated seven-year prison sentence. Brazeail alleged that his attorney misadvised him he would be eligible for release after no more than four years, when in fact section 944.275(4) required him to serve at least 85 percent of the sentence, rendering his plea involuntary. The appellate court reversed the denial of this claim, holding it colorable under longstanding Florida precedent on voluntary and knowing pleas (separate from Sixth Amendment ineffective-assistance analysis), without any requirement to allege a reasonable probability of a more favorable trial outcome, and found the attached plea documents did not conclusively refute it; the court otherwise affirmed the denial of Brazeail's remaining claims. The matter was remanded for further consideration of the plea-withdrawal claim.

criminal lawprocedure

In Wofford v. State, the appellant challenged the trial court's denial of his pro se motion to withdraw a guilty plea to burglary of a dwelling, filed after his appointed counsel was discharged following sentencing, on grounds that counsel had misled him about the sentence. The District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, reversed the denial and remanded for further proceedings. The majority reasoned that the post-sentencing motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(l) is a critical stage at which an indigent defendant has a Sixth Amendment right to appointed counsel, which was not offered here, making the denial per se reversible error as established in Padgett v. State. The case was remanded with instructions to appoint counsel to advise and assist the appellant.

criminal lawprocedure

In Giles v. Luckie, the appellants sued the appellee for negligence arising from an automobile accident and requested a jury instruction allowing recovery of noneconomic damages such as loss of enjoyment of life, loss of consortium, disability, and disfigurement even if the permanency threshold under Florida's Motor Vehicle No-Fault Law was not met. The trial court denied the instruction, and the jury awarded the injured plaintiff only her unpaid medical expenses after finding no permanent injury. The District Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, holding that section 627.737(2) requires a threshold injury for recovery of any noneconomic damages based on the statute's long-understood meaning and prior case law. Although the court found that the tort exemption in section 627.737(1) does not itself cover noneconomic damages, it concluded that the threshold requirement still applies to all such damages. The court certified to the Florida Supreme Court the question of whether the statute exempts covered defendants from liability for all noneconomic damages absent a threshold injury.

torts & liability

The case involved a class action lawsuit by ambulatory surgical centers, diagnostic-imaging centers, and clinical laboratories challenging the constitutionality of the Public Medical Assistance Trust Fund assessment under section 395.7015, Florida Statutes, which imposed a tax on their net operating revenues to fund Medicaid inpatient hospital costs. The plaintiffs argued that the assessment violated due process and equal protection because they received no benefit from the fund and faced an unequal burden not imposed on the general public. The trial court declared the statute unconstitutional and issued an injunction against further assessments. The appellate court reversed, holding that the assessment was a valid tax and that the legislature had a rational basis for extending it to these providers to address competitive imbalances with hospitals burdened by indigent care costs. The court remanded with directions to dissolve the injunction.

healthcaretaxesbusiness & regulatorycivil rights

In Smith v. State, the appellant challenged a trial court order that summarily denied his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for postconviction relief after he entered a plea. The District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, affirmed the denial of all claims except one alleging that defense counsel failed to properly investigate and interview a potential witness. The court held that this claim was facially sufficient under precedent such as Marrow v. State and was not refuted by the record or negated by the plea itself, as the motion alleged the appellant would not have pled guilty absent the error. It therefore reversed the order only as to that claim and remanded for further proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a challenge by Chancellor Media Whiteco Outdoor Corporation to a Florida Department of Transportation order requiring removal of six replacement outdoor advertising signs along U.S. Highway 1 and Interstate 95. The signs replaced grandfathered nonconforming signs destroyed by wildfire in 1998, and the company relied on a 1999 state law allowing like-kind rebuilding of structures damaged in those wildfires. The court affirmed the removal order, holding that federal regulations under the Highway Beautification Act prohibit reerection of such signs except in cases of vandalism or criminal acts, and the state law could not authorize replacements prohibited by the federal rules tied to highway funding.

business & regulatoryfederal powerproperty

This case was a negligence lawsuit brought by the family of a 14-year-old boy killed by a truck while walking to his school bus stop in the dark, alleging that Clay Electric Cooperative failed to maintain a streetlight as required by its contract with a governmental entity. The trial court granted summary judgment to Clay Electric, concluding it owed no legal duty to pedestrians. The District Court of Appeal of Florida reversed, holding that Clay Electric assumed a duty to exercise reasonable care in maintaining the streetlights because the governmental entity had a duty to maintain such improvements for public safety, including for pedestrians, and the contract was for maintenance rather than merely supplying electricity. The court distinguished the case from Arenado v. Florida Power & Light Co. on the ground that the contract here involved maintenance of a governmental improvement rather than interruption of electrical service.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a challenge to a conviction under Florida Statute § 800.04(4) for committing a lewd or lascivious act in the presence of a child under sixteen, based on the defendant's graphic verbal statements to a child about desiring oral sex. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4), arguing that his conduct was merely verbal and did not constitute an "act" under the statute. The court, sitting en banc, affirmed the denial of the motion and the conviction, holding that the statutory term "act" encompasses verbal statements or speech, as supported by common understanding and precedent recognizing verbal acts in criminal contexts. The decision reasoned that there was no dispute the language was lewd, and the statute prohibits such conduct whether accompanied by physical action or not.

criminal law