Bradford L. Thomas

In Lamolinara v. Lamolinara, a former wife appealed the trial court's denial of her motion for relief from a 2005 divorce judgment, alleging that the former husband had fraudulently failed to disclose over $150,000 in earned income including a large bonus. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order, concluding that the appeal lacked merit but was not frivolous. On the issue of appellate attorney's fees under section 61.16, Florida Statutes, the court remanded the former wife's motion to the trial court for determination based on the parties' relative financial resources and the factors from Rosen v. Rosen, while rejecting the former husband's request for fees as unsupported by law. The opinion follows the Second District's approach in Rados v. Rados for handling such fee motions in domestic relations appeals.

family lawprocedure

The case involved a dispute over attorney’s fees in a workers’ compensation claim filed against the Miami-Dade Police Department. The appellate court reversed the decision below and remanded the matter to the Judge of Compensation Claims. On remand, that judge must decide, using only the existing record and without taking new evidence or argument, whether the employer had good cause for the lack of specificity in its initial response to the fee motion or for the untimeliness of its amended response. A ruling on fees must then follow from that good-cause determination. The court relied on the applicable administrative rule and prior precedent requiring such a limited-scope remand.

labor & employmentprocedure

In this workers’ compensation appeal, the claimant sought temporary total disability benefits for a period in 2010 along with authorization for a second series of cervical epidural steroid injections and related penalties, interest, costs, and attorney’s fees, based on psychiatric difficulties arising from a compensable physical injury. The court affirmed the denial of the requested medical benefits without further comment but reversed the denial of the temporary total disability benefits. The court held that the claimant had submitted medical evidence establishing total disability throughout the relevant period, shifting the burden to the employer/carrier to prove a change in work status, which was not met by any admissible medical evidence. The judge of compensation claims had improperly based the denial on an analysis of the claimant’s credibility that lacked support from any record medical evidence of a changed work status.

labor & employment

This case involved a foreclosure action filed by HSBC Bank against the Reeds after their default on a promissory note and mortgage. The trial court entered a final judgment of foreclosure in June 2010, but later ordered post-judgment mediation and entered an order enforcing a mediated settlement agreement that modified the note and mortgage terms. The Reeds moved to enforce the settlement, while HSBC argued it was conditional. On appeal, the court held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to issue the post-judgment mediation order or enforce the settlement because it had not vacated the final judgment, and therefore quashed the enforcement order.

procedureproperty

This case involved a dispute over the distribution of real property from a father's intestate estate to his son and daughter. The son had previously executed a quitclaim deed conveying his interest in the townhouse to his father and former stepmother. The trial court ruled that the son had no interest in the property because the deed conveyed away all rights, including any future inheritance rights. On appeal, the court reversed, holding that a quitclaim deed conveys only the interest held at the time of conveyance and does not transfer an expectancy interest in future inheritance, and that the after-acquired title doctrine did not apply. The court directed that the estate's one-half interest in the property be distributed equally between the son and daughter.

propertyfamily law

In this personal injury case from a rear-end car accident, the defendant conceded fault but raised a seatbelt defense, arguing the plaintiff's admitted failure to wear a seatbelt contributed to her claimed cervical disc injury, and the jury apportioned 35% comparative negligence to the plaintiff. The plaintiffs appealed the trial court's denial of their motion for directed verdict on the apportionment issue. The appellate court reversed that ruling, concluding the defendant presented no competent expert medical evidence establishing that the seatbelt nonuse substantially caused or contributed to the injury, as required under Florida precedent such as Insurance Co. of North America v. Pasakarnis and Houghton v. Bond. The court affirmed the remaining issues without comment and remanded for entry of judgment in the plaintiffs' favor on liability.

torts & liability

The case involved a post-divorce dispute in which the former wife sought to modify the consent final judgment that had awarded the former husband primary residential custody of their four children. After the former husband moved the children approximately 28 miles to a new county and the former wife alleged issues including lack of shared parental responsibility and an unstable environment, the trial court granted the modification and transferred primary custody based on findings of detriment to the children. The District Court of Appeal reversed the custody modification, holding that the former wife had not established a substantial, material, and unanticipated change in circumstances as required under section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes, and that a relocation of this distance alone did not meet the extraordinary burden for altering custody. The court affirmed the trial court's rulings on income imputation and denial of contempt without comment.

family law

The case involved a dispute over whether a commercial property insurance policy covered theft of inventory stored at a newly leased warehouse near the insured's Orange Park location, where theft coverage was excluded in the declarations. The trial court granted summary judgment to the insured based on an off-premises storage extension that provided up to $10,000 in coverage, while denying the insurer's motion. On appeal, the court held that the newly acquired property provision applied instead, as the inventory was new stock at a newly leased permanent location rather than temporarily off-premises, and the theft exclusion did not extend to that location. The appellate court therefore reversed the reliance on the off-premises clause but affirmed the finding of coverage under the correct policy provision.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case involved an appellant charged with 33 counts of possessing child pornography after investigators linked his IP address and computer to downloads of such material via a peer-to-peer program on multiple dates. A jury convicted him on six counts, and he appealed the denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to prove his possession because the family computer was accessible to others and the state's case was circumstantial. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's ruling, concluding that the state presented competent substantial evidence—including family members' testimony denying involvement, the appellant's presence on the download dates, and the absence of downloads when he was away—to support the jury's finding of constructive possession.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned an appeal from a conviction for robbery by sudden snatching under Florida Statute section 812.131, where the defendant grabbed a purse from a bus-stop bench that was touching the victim's hip after briefly distracting her. The court reversed the conviction and directed entry of a judgment for misdemeanor theft under section 812.014(1). It reasoned that the statute requires the taking to be from the victim's actual person or physical embrace, not merely from nearby proximity or contact, distinguishing it from general robbery which covers property in the victim's custody; prior precedent confirmed that a purse on a surface next to the victim does not satisfy the element even if touching her. The undisputed facts therefore supported only theft rather than the charged offense, and the court invoked section 924.34 to enter judgment on the lesser included offense for which the jury had been instructed.

criminal law

In this workers’ compensation case arising from a 1982 workplace assault, the claimant sought authorization for non-professional attendant care after a dispute arose between her authorized psychiatrist and another psychiatrist she consulted unilaterally. The Judge of Compensation Claims applied the 2003 version of section 440.13(9) retroactively, appointed an expert medical advisor (EMA), and denied the claim based on the EMA’s opinion. The court held that section 440.13(9) creates a substantive change by altering the parties’ rights regarding entitlement to the examination and responsibility for its cost, unlike purely procedural provisions, and therefore cannot be applied to accidents predating the statute; it affirmed denial of a one-time psychiatrist change but reversed and remanded the attendant-care issue for reconsideration on the existing medical evidence. The analysis compared the EMA provision to the independent medical examination statute previously deemed substantive and reviewed the evolution of tie-breaker examination rules under chapter 440.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involved a long-running dispute over bidding for a concession stand contract on Santa Rosa Island, where the appellants claimed that the appellees' threats of litigation caused the authority to restart the RFP process and award the contract elsewhere. The appellants sued for tortious interference with a business relationship, defamation based on statements questioning the original bid process, and civil conspiracy. The trial court granted summary judgment to the appellees on all counts. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that the appellants failed to preserve most arguments because they did not file a motion for rehearing or similar post-judgment motion to address errors first appearing in the final order, and the remaining defamation argument misconstrued the trial court's ruling.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

The case concerned the termination of a father's parental rights by the Department of Children and Families, following the child's disclosure of abuse and the father's prior out-of-state sex-related convictions and incarceration. The trial court terminated the rights in part by designating the father a sexual predator under section 39.806(1)(d)2, Florida Statutes, but the appellate court reversed that ground. The court held that such a designation must be made by a sentencing court in a criminal proceeding prior to the termination action, and that a dependency court lacks authority to assign it. The termination was affirmed on the alternative basis that the father abused the child, and the admission of child hearsay evidence was also upheld.

family lawcriminal lawprocedure

In Green v. State, the appellant challenged the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, seeking additional credit for time spent in jail prior to sentencing after pleading guilty to battery on a person over 65, burglary, petit theft, and violating probation in another case. The court affirmed the denial of the motion. It reasoned that the appellant had waived any claim to more credit than the 133 days plus 48 days specified in his negotiated plea agreement, that the motion failed to meet the requirements for a facially sufficient claim under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) by not identifying where in the record relief was shown, and that precedent established such credit challenges are not cognizable in a 3.800(a) motion when a plea specifies the credit amount.

criminal lawprocedure

In Walker v. State, the petitioner challenged her DUI conviction after a county court denied her motion to suppress evidence from a traffic stop conducted by an off-duty Atlantic Beach police officer outside his jurisdiction, relying in part on a Mutual Assistance Agreement between police departments that the State submitted only after the evidentiary hearing closed. The circuit court, acting in its appellate capacity, affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress, finding the procedural error harmless because it reviewed the agreement de novo and concluding that rules of evidence did not strictly apply. The appellate court granted the petition for certiorari, quashed the order denying the motion to suppress, and remanded for further proceedings. It reasoned that the circuit court's consideration of the post-hearing agreement deprived the petitioner of due process by preventing her from challenging its authenticity or compliance, resulting in a miscarriage of justice under the harmless error standard, especially since the stop was dispositive to the conviction and the citizen's arrest theory had been rejected.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

In Stallworth v. State, the appellant appealed his conviction for trafficking in illegal drugs, which rested on conflicting testimony about whether he or another person discarded a prescription bottle containing a controlled substance near his uncle's home. The court reversed the conviction on the ground that the trial court erred by permitting the prosecutor to question a defense witness in detail about the specific nature of his eight prior felony convictions after the witness had admitted their existence and number. Florida evidence law under section 90.610 allows impeachment by asking about the fact and number of felony convictions but prohibits further questions on the nature of the crimes unless the witness denies them, and the error was not harmless because the case turned on witness credibility. The court affirmed without comment the separate claim that the State improperly bolstered its law enforcement witness during closing argument.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned a patient's discrimination complaint against a hospital for refusing her request for sign-language interpreter services while she was a patient, filed under the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992. The Florida Human Relations Commission had dismissed the complaint, concluding that hospitals are not public accommodations under the Act even if they have cafeterias on site. The court reversed the dismissal and remanded the case, holding that whether a hospital becomes a public accommodation turns on the factual question of whether it holds itself out as serving patrons of an on-site cafeteria that qualifies as a covered establishment under section 760.02(11)(d). The court directed the Commission to make the necessary findings on this issue and, if the hospital qualifies as a public accommodation, to determine whether the alleged denial of services constituted discrimination under the Act.

civil rightshealthcareprocedure

The case involved an appeal by a defendant whose probation was revoked after a guilty plea to lewd or lascivious battery, resulting in a sentence of three years' imprisonment. The trial court had found violations of multiple probation conditions, including failure to remain employed, pay supervision costs, complete community service hours, and avoid certain materials. The appellate court reversed the revocation order because the written findings on employment did not match the oral pronouncements, the trial court failed to determine the defendant's ability to pay costs before revoking on that basis, and it did not make required specific findings linking the prohibited materials to the defendant's deviant behavior patterns. Although evidence supported a technical violation of the community service condition, the court remanded for a determination of whether that violation alone would have warranted revocation. The matter was reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinion.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned a challenge under Florida statute to Leon County's development order approving a planned unit development (PUD) concept plan for the Summerfield property, which lies in closed basins near Lake Jackson. The trial court invalidated the order as inconsistent with the local comprehensive plan's Special Development Zones and Lake Protection provisions, which impose density and runoff controls to protect the lake. The appellate court reversed, holding as a matter of law that the zones do not apply within closed basins because those areas cannot discharge rainwater runoff into Lake Jackson, and the county's ordinance and land development code provisions are consistent with the plan's text and purpose of restricting activities that impact stormwater quality. The court directed entry of summary judgment for the developers, noting that the plan's protections target actual discharge and that closed-basin status exempts the land from the more stringent limitations.

environmentpropertybusiness & regulatory

This Florida workers' compensation appeal concerned whether an employer/carrier that stopped paying permanent total disability benefits due to an administrative error and later paid past-due amounts after a petition was filed owed claimant's counsel attorney fees that included the present value of all future benefits. The court held that counsel was entitled to fees under the applicable 1995 statute because the carrier failed to respond to the petition within the required time, but reversed the fee calculation. The core reasoning was that, under the precedent of Interior Custom Concepts v. Slovak, future benefits could not be included in the fee award when the evidence showed the carrier had no intent to permanently suspend payments and the stoppage was merely an oversight rather than a denial. The case was remanded for recalculation of fees based only on the value of past-due benefits.

labor & employmentprocedure