Jay P. Cohen

In this personal injury case, plaintiff Duplantis sued multiple defendants, including Brock Specialty Services, after a car accident, alleging negligence by the driver and vicarious liability by the owners and employer. Brock Specialty made an offer of judgment for $300,000 that required Duplantis to release all defendants and dismiss the entire case, which he rejected; the jury later awarded him only $18,400. The trial court granted Brock Specialty attorney’s fees and costs based on the rejected offer under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442 and section 768.79. The appellate court reversed, holding the offer invalid because it was a joint proposal that failed to apportion amounts and terms among defendants, and vicarious liability remained disputed, preventing the plaintiff from independently evaluating each party’s offer.

proceduretorts & liability

In this case, Fort Plantation Investments borrowed $1,035,000 from Ironstone Bank via a construction loan secured by a mortgage on property in St. Johns County and absolute, unconditional guaranties from multiple parties. After default, the bank sued Fort Plantation on the note and to foreclose the mortgage while also seeking money judgments against the guarantors. The trial court entered summary judgment for the bank, awarding damages against the guarantors and ordering a foreclosure sale while retaining jurisdiction for a potential deficiency. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Florida law permits simultaneous pursuit of an absolute guaranty and foreclosure in the same action, but allowing the guarantors to seek set-off from sale proceeds.

propertybusiness & regulatory

The case involved Mr. Shade's conviction for attempted second-degree murder. The court reversed the conviction and remanded the case. It did so because the jury instruction on the lesser-included offense of attempted voluntary manslaughter was fundamentally erroneous. This conclusion followed from multiple prior decisions of the same court, while noting conflict with a decision from another district court.

criminal law

Christina Hamilton appealed a final judgment of paternity, contesting the trial court's grant of visitation to the child's natural father and possibly the paternity determination itself. The record included a DNA test confirming paternity but lacked a transcript of proceedings, limiting appellate review. Visitation and shared parenting matters are fact-intensive, and absent a transcript or any defect apparent on the face of the judgment, such issues cannot be reviewed on appeal. The court therefore affirmed the trial court's decision.

family law

France Etienne appealed the denial of his motion to correct a sentencing error after he admitted to violating community control and received a sixty-month prison sentence as a youthful offender. The court determined that the violation was based on being out of place under condition eleven of community control rather than other alleged new offenses, but the sentencing order had omitted reference to the specific condition. Finding no error in the underlying sentence, the court affirmed the denial while remanding the case for entry of an amended order to reflect the violation of condition eleven.

criminal lawprocedure

In this dependency case, the Department of Children and Families took two surviving children into custody after their infant sibling died, with a pending report on the mother's substance abuse and the infant's positive drug test at birth. The trial court adjudicated the children dependent based on the mother's consent by default and, after a hearing as to the father, found he had not abused or neglected the children but still determined they faced a substantial risk of prospective harm due to his awareness of the mother's issues and leaving them unsupervised with her, leading to a case plan and non-relative placement. The appellate court reversed, holding that section 39.507(7) permits only one dependency adjudication order and requires an evidentiary hearing focused on whether each parent actually abused, abandoned, or neglected the children rather than prospective risk, following the procedure outlined in prior precedent like P.S. v. Department of Children and Families.

family lawprocedure

Tyrone Dill petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel after his conviction for attempted second-degree murder with a firearm. The petition claimed counsel failed to seek supplemental briefing on whether the standard attempted voluntary manslaughter jury instruction was fundamental error, following the First District’s decisions in Montgomery v. State and Lamb v. State, which held that the instruction improperly required proof of intent to kill. The court granted the petition, concluding that counsel’s omission during the pending direct appeal met the Strickland standard for deficient performance that undermined confidence in the result, and remanded for a new trial while certifying conflict with the Fourth District’s contrary view in Williams v. State.

criminal law

This case concerns an appeal over attorney's fees awarded to an insured after an automobile insurer initially denied coverage for nonpayment of premiums, later reinstated the policy, but delayed payment on a property damage claim for nine months until after litigation began. The trial court granted fees only through the date coverage was confirmed and for limited time establishing entitlement, but denied fees through the date of actual payment. The appellate court reversed in part, holding that the insurer's unreasonable delay forced the insured to secure counsel and litigate the claim, making the payment equivalent to a confession of judgment under Florida Statute 627.428 and entitling the insured to fees through final judgment plus fees for proving entitlement.

business & regulatoryprocedure

Stephen Lanier was arrested and charged with possession of a controlled substance and resisting an officer without violence. He filed a motion to suppress the evidence, claiming he was seized without a warrant or probable cause in violation of the Fourth Amendment, but the trial court denied the motion. Lanier then entered a negotiated guilty plea while reserving the right to appeal, and on appeal he additionally challenged the constitutionality of Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. The appellate court affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress, finding no error and relying on precedent from Flagg v. State.

criminal lawprocedure

In Brown v. State, Jerrail T. Brown was convicted after a jury trial of attempted voluntary manslaughter, aggravated battery, and aggravated assault. On appeal, the sole issue was whether a mandatory minimum sentence under Florida's 10-20-Life statute (section 775.087(2)) could be imposed on the attempted voluntary manslaughter conviction. The State conceded error, and the court held that attempted voluntary manslaughter is not among the offenses enumerated in the statute for application of its mandatory minimum provisions. The court therefore affirmed the convictions but reversed the mandatory minimum sentence on the attempted voluntary manslaughter count and remanded for the trial court to strike that portion of the sentence.

criminal law

In Willis v. State, the defendant was convicted of attempted second-degree murder and robbery with a deadly weapon after evidence showed he stabbed a cab driver during a robbery. On appeal, Willis challenged the jury instruction for the lesser-included offense of voluntary manslaughter, which required the jury to find that he intended to cause the victim's death. The court reversed the attempted second-degree murder conviction but affirmed the robbery conviction. It held that the instruction constituted fundamental error under State v. Montgomery, which clarified that manslaughter by act does not require intent to kill, and this principle extends to attempted voluntary manslaughter as recognized in Burton v. State and similar cases from other districts. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the reversed count.

criminal lawprocedure

In Hayes v. State, the defendant challenged her sentence after her probation was revoked on convictions for uttering forged money orders and grand theft. She had initially received a sentence of time served followed by probation after pleading guilty and representing that she would immediately pay restitution, but she failed to pay or comply with probation terms and committed further crimes. Upon revocation, the trial court imposed concurrent five-year prison terms. Hayes argued on appeal that her original sentence was a true split sentence that limited the new term to any suspended portion, but the appellate court upheld the prison sentence, finding that the trial judge had not imposed a suspended sentence and thus no split sentence existed. The court did reverse the assessment of certain costs lacking statutory support and remanded for further proceedings on that issue.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved T.K. appealing a final judgment terminating her parental rights to her child J.R.T. The Department of Children and Families had sought termination based on the mother's failure to substantially comply with a case plan addressing substance abuse and on the prior termination of her rights to another child. The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that the mother's ongoing alcohol and drug issues, including multiple arrests and possession of large quantities of prescription medications, endangered the child and that termination was the least restrictive means of protection. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the evidence supported the findings of noncompliance with the case plan and that legitimate prescription use did not explain the mother's conduct.

family law

The case involved Anderson Mansingh's appeal of his convictions for first-degree murder and burglary of a dwelling with an assault or battery after a jury trial. Mansingh argued that the trial court violated his constitutional right to a public trial by excluding spectators from the courtroom during voir dire despite his objection suggesting they sit in the jury box. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, ruling that the public-trial issue was not preserved for review. The court reasoned that a valid objection must be contemporaneous, state specific legal grounds, and match the arguments raised on appeal, but Mansingh made only a general objection without citing authority such as Waller v. Georgia or arguing for required findings on compelling interests and narrow tailoring.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. K.N., a Florida appellate court addressed nine juvenile delinquency cases charging K.N. with burglary of conveyances, thefts, possession of burglary tools, and related offenses stemming from a 2 a.m. vehicle stop prompted by a 911 report of suspicious activity matching a pattern of local car burglaries. The trial court had partially granted K.N.'s motion to suppress evidence obtained during the stop, protective sweep, vehicle search, and subsequent consent search of his home. The appellate court reversed the suppression ruling, holding that the initial stop was supported by reasonable suspicion that escalated to probable cause for arrest after questioning, that handcuffing and the protective sweep were permissible during the investigative detention, and that K.N. lacked standing to challenge the vehicle search under Arizona v. Gant due to the good-faith exception and plain-view observations. The court affirmed the denial of suppression in part and remanded the cases for trial.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved criminal charges against Todd Norwood and a codefendant for scheme to defraud and petit theft arising from their solicitation and collection of donations purportedly on behalf of the Disabled Police Officers of America. The trial court granted Norwood's motion to dismiss under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(b) based on the factual allegations in the information, but the State appealed. The appellate court reviewed the dismissal order de novo and reversed it, holding that the motion and hearing evidence failed to establish undisputed facts negating a prima facie case of guilt. The court noted disputed facts regarding the existence of a contract with the charity and that the contract's terms did not authorize solicitation of cash donations, so the charges were reinstated for further proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

In Andrews v. Frey, the plaintiffs sued Shannon Frey for negligence and her father Rudolph Frey for vicarious liability under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine after a car accident, but the defendants disputed only the extent of permanent damages. Prior to trial, Shannon Frey served separate proposals for settlement on each plaintiff that required releasing both defendants in exchange for specified amounts; the proposals were rejected, and the plaintiffs obtained a modest net judgment for one plaintiff and none for the other. The trial court awarded the defendants attorney's fees and costs under Florida's offer-of-judgment statute based on the rejected proposals, and the Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the proposals were valid because Shannon Frey was clearly the sole offeror, the claims against Rudolph Frey involved no independent liability or damages, and the release condition did not create ambiguity or prevent objective evaluation of the offers. The court certified a question to the Florida Supreme Court on whether such a proposal conditioned on dismissing claims against a non-offeror constitutes a joint proposal under Rule 1.442(c)(3).

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved the termination of a mother's parental rights to her young child after the child was removed from the home due to allegations of substance abuse and domestic violence. The Department of Children and Families sought termination because the mother failed to substantially comply with her case plan, which required substance abuse counseling, parenting classes, stable housing and income, and other tasks; she had negligible compliance, continued drug use, and minimal contact with the child. The trial court terminated the rights based on clear and convincing evidence, and the appellate court affirmed, rejecting the mother's arguments about least restrictive means as she lacked standing to raise issues concerning the father's compliance.

family law

This case involved whether an insurer, Lloyds of London, could pursue a subrogation claim against a commercial tenant, Cape Publications, for fire damage to leased premises after paying the landlord's claim. The court affirmed summary judgment in favor of the tenant, holding that Lloyds could not sue its own insured or beneficiary. The reasoning was that the lease's provisions, including the tenant's pro rata payment of insurance premiums, evidenced an intent to treat the tenant as a co-insured under the policy, following a case-by-case analysis of the parties' agreement rather than a strict rule.

propertybusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

Randy James, an inmate at the Lake County jail, filed a complaint alleging negligence and medical malpractice against individual jail employees after he fell down stairs and sustained injuries. The trial court reviewed the complaint under section 57.085(6), Florida Statutes, found it frivolous, and dismissed it with prejudice. On appeal, the court agreed that the complaint failed to state viable claims but held that dismissal with prejudice was improper. It concluded that the negligence claim could not proceed against the individual employees under section 768.28 and that the medical malpractice claim did not comply with the pre-suit requirements of section 766.203, yet James should be given an opportunity to amend because the defects might be correctable.

proceduretorts & liability