Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
Judge, District Court of Appeal of Florida
Bushong v. Peel
District Court of Appeal of Florida · 2012-03-28
In this marital dissolution case, Mr. Bushong sought full discovery of financial documents from multiple professional employer organizations that he and Ms. Peel had operated together, which he claimed were marital assets valued over $20 million, in order to resolve issues of equitable distribution and alimony. Although the companies were titled solely in Ms. Peel's name due to Mr. Bushong's prior felony conviction and licensing concerns, the circuit court granted protective orders limiting discovery to documents tied only to Ms. Peel's financial interest and to one company in which Mr. Bushong had established ownership. The appellate court granted the petition for writ of certiorari, quashed the protective orders, and remanded with instructions to allow the requested discovery. It reasoned that the prior cases relied on by the circuit court were factually distinguishable, that Mr. Bushong had demonstrated a substantial equitable interest in the companies as marital assets, and that denial of the discovery would cause material harm not remediable on appeal.
family lawprocedure
Swope Rodante, P.A. v. Harmon
District Court of Appeal of Florida · 2012-03-28 · cited 10×
Swope Rodante, P.A. sued Thomas Harmon and his firm alleging tortious interference with a client representation contract, breach of an oral agreement regarding settlement funds, and entitlement to a constructive trust over disputed fees. The trial court dismissed the entire complaint with prejudice for failure to state claims. The appellate court reversed the dismissal of the first two counts, holding that the complaint alleged facts supporting the elements of tortious interference and breach of an oral contract sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss, including the right to at least nominal damages. It affirmed dismissal of the constructive trust count on the ground that a constructive trust is an equitable remedy, not an independent cause of action.
torts & liabilityprocedure
Whitehall v. State
District Court of Appeal of Florida · 2012-03-07 · cited 3×
In Whitehall v. State, the defendant was initially charged with fleeing to elude as a third-degree felony after a police chase, but after the 175-day speedy trial period expired the State filed a superseding information amending the charge to a second-degree felony version involving high speed or wanton disregard. The trial court denied the defendant's motion for discharge based on speedy trial violations, allowed the new charge, and entered a conviction after trial. On appeal the court reversed the conviction, reasoning that the State may not add a new offense arising from the same conduct after the speedy trial period expires absent a waiver by the defendant, no such waiver was shown on the record, and the rule's recapture period applies only to the original charges.
criminal lawprocedure
JDM v. State
District Court of Appeal of Florida · 2012-03-07
The case involved J.D.M., a juvenile, appealing the trial court's revocation of his probation and resulting disposition orders after violations including new marijuana possession offenses and absconding from supervision. The trial court had placed him on probation for burglary and marijuana-related charges, later adjudicated him delinquent upon finding the violations proven, and committed him to the Department of Juvenile Justice until age nineteen. The appellate court affirmed the adjudications of delinquency and the felony dispositions, determining there was sufficient evidence to support the probation revocation. It reversed the misdemeanor disposition because the term exceeded the maximum adult sentence permitted by statute and remanded for a written revocation order specifying the conditions violated.
criminal lawprocedure
AGATE v. Clampitt
District Court of Appeal of Florida · 2012-02-24 · cited 3×
The case involved Joseph and Janet Agate, who transferred over $300,000 to Ronald Clampitt, a mortgage broker, starting in 1996 based on his oral promises to fund mortgages and provide interest returns, though no written agreement was made. When the returns fell short, the Agates filed a seven-count complaint in 2004; the trial court dismissed it with prejudice under the Statute of Frauds and denied their request to add a quantum meruit claim. On appeal, the court reversed the dismissal, ruling that the Statute of Frauds does not bar count three alleging violation of the mortgage broker licensing statute (Fla. Stat. § 494.0025) because no writing between the parties is required, nor does it apply to the Agates as creditors rather than debtors under the credit agreement statute (Fla. Stat. § 687.0304). The court also directed that the amendment to add quantum meruit be allowed on remand, as it arises from the same transactions and would not prejudice the defendant.
business & regulatoryprocedure
Barile v. GAYHEART
District Court of Appeal of Florida · 2012-02-17 · cited 8×
In Barile v. Gayheart, Tonya Gayheart petitioned for an injunction against repeat violence against her former employer Joseph Barile. The trial court instead entered an injunction against domestic violence after determining during the hearing that the evidence did not support the repeat violence claim. On appeal, the court reversed, holding that Mr. Barile was denied due process because the trial court unilaterally switched the basis of the injunction without prior notice, without allowing an amendment to the petition, and without confirming that Mr. Barile had an opportunity to prepare or object. The appellate court did not reach the other issues raised regarding the statutory requirements for either type of injunction.
criminal lawfamily lawprocedure