Paul D. Barns

The case involved a challenge by taxpayers to the City of Deerfield Beach's proposed issuance of $1.5 million in municipal bonds, secured by revenues from cigarette, franchise, occupational license, and alcoholic beverage taxes, to purchase land and build a spring training facility for the Pittsburgh Pirates baseball team that would then be leased to private entities. The City planned to use most of the proceeds for the facility and the rest to retire prior bonds, enabling the tax pledges. The Supreme Court of Florida reversed the trial court's validation of the bonds. The core reasoning was that the project did not serve a valid public purpose sufficient to justify pledging public tax revenues for facilities primarily benefiting a private major league team.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

The case concerned a wife's appeal from a final divorce decree that granted the husband a divorce and custody of the two younger children, awarded the wife custody of the two older children along with child support, provided her with $100 monthly alimony for six months, and ordered payment of her attorneys' fees. The district court dismissed the appeal on the ground that the wife was estopped from challenging the decree because she had accepted the alimony and fee payments. On certiorari, the Florida Supreme Court quashed that dismissal, holding that the wife was not estopped. The court reasoned that acceptance of periodic alimony or support money, which is based on the husband's legal obligation rather than a negotiated agreement, does not waive appeal rights absent clear prejudice to the husband or circumstances requiring estoppel, and distinguished the facts from cases involving lump-sum awards or full acceptance of all benefits under an agreement.

family lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute over coverage under an automobile insurance policy's comprehensive clause for damage to a vehicle's engine caused by overheating from a stuck thermostat, which melted pistons and froze the main bearing. The Florida Supreme Court granted certiorari, quashed the district court's affirmance of a judgment for the insured, and held that the insurer was not liable. The policy excluded coverage for damage due and confined to mechanical or electrical breakdown or failure, and the court reasoned that the loss here resulted solely from such a breakdown without involvement of any insured peril like fire. It approved the reasoning from the district court dissent and a similar Texas case, distinguishing scenarios where an insured peril contributes to or follows the breakdown.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case involved a property owner's challenge to a municipal zoning ordinance that was amended to prohibit keeping ponies at his nursery school and kindergarten in an R-O zone. The petitioner filed a complaint in equity seeking an injunction against enforcement, alleging the amendment was invalid due to lack of proper notice, hearings, and compliance with procedural requirements. The trial court and district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, primarily because equity typically does not enjoin enforcement of regulatory ordinances. The Supreme Court qualifiedly affirmed the dismissal on grounds that the complaint lacked sufficient factual allegations rather than mere conclusions, but clarified that equity jurisdiction is available to challenge zoning ordinances affecting property use when properly pleaded.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved William Crownover seeking a writ of prohibition to bar the District Court of Appeal from hearing a state corrections official's appeal in a habeas corpus proceeding, on grounds that the appeal was filed 32 days after judgment and thus untimely under the 30-day limit for state appeals in criminal cases per Section 924.10. The Supreme Court of Florida held that habeas corpus proceedings are civil in nature rather than criminal, even when arising from a criminal conviction or restraint, so the criminal appeal deadline did not govern. The court receded from earlier precedent applying the criminal time limit to such appeals and noted that the right to appeal is now constitutional and a matter of right, subject only to court rules on procedure. It therefore denied prohibition and allowed the appeal to proceed.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned Abraham Cassel, a practicing psychologist threatened with criminal prosecution by the Florida State Board of Examiners of Psychology for using the title without a certificate under Chapter 490, Florida Statutes. Cassel filed suit seeking a declaratory decree that the law was unconstitutional, and the trial court agreed, leading to this appeal by the Board. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding the statute unconstitutional because it delegated legislative power to the Board without adequate standards, allowing the Board unfettered discretion to define examination content, approve universities, and set qualification requirements for psychologists.

business & regulatory

This case involves a post-divorce child custody dispute in which the mother petitioned a Florida court to restore custody of her three children after they had been placed with the paternal grandparents and later the father, all of whom were domiciled in Ohio. The trial court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction when the non-resident father and grandparents did not appear after being served by mail. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the custody modification proceeding was in personam and required personal jurisdiction over the absent parties, which extraterritorial service did not confer, and that the children were no longer subject to the court's authority. The court further observed that any favorable decree would lack binding effect in Ohio under the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

family lawprocedure

In Holland v. Gross, the plaintiffs sought to have a $12,000 promissory note and security bond declared void on grounds of usury under Florida statutes, claiming the loan was actually made to the individual plaintiff rather than the corporate maker to evade usury laws. The defendant counterclaimed to enforce the note. The trial court, adopting the master's findings, ruled that the loan was made to the corporation, making the usury defense unavailable, and that the repeal of a statute prohibiting corporations from pleading usury did not retroactively affect the validity of the contract made when such defense was unavailable. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the findings of fact were supported by evidence and that the contract's validity is determined by the law at the time it was made.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a suit by plaintiff Reinhard to quiet title to several lots in Dade County, Florida, which he acquired through a chain of title originating from a tax deed that excluded the west 13 feet of the lots. Defendant Weber answered asserting ownership of that excluded strip and moved for a decree on the pleadings after the time for taking testimony had expired. The trial court dismissed the complaint as to Weber, and the Florida Supreme Court affirmed. The court reasoned that, treating all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true under the applicable procedural rules, the plaintiff failed to state a cause of action because his title documents showed he did not own the west 13 feet. The court also noted that procedural objections to Weber's answer were not preserved for review.

propertyprocedure

The case involved subcontractors who sued a general contractor for payment of labor and materials on a federal construction project after the original subcontractor defaulted. The plaintiffs claimed the general contractor orally promised payment if they continued work, and they also sought recovery under a written bond, but the trial court dismissed the amended second and third counts as sham pleadings, struck them, and entered summary judgment for the defendants. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that conflicting affidavits created genuine issues of material fact precluding dismissal as sham or summary judgment, that the second count's ambiguities should have been resolved against the defendants with leave to amend, and that the third count failed to adequately plead the bond's terms but plaintiffs should be allowed to amend after discovery. The court emphasized that motions to strike sham pleadings must meet the same standards as summary judgment motions, which require no genuine factual disputes.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved a dispute over title to land in Florida between Peria M. Hull, the widow and heir of a purchaser who acquired the property through an unrecorded 1927 deed (following an earlier agreement for deed), and Maryland Casualty Company, which held recorded judgments from the early 1930s against the original grantor. The trial court dismissed Hull's bill to quiet title after an execution was levied on the land, but the Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that the equities favored Hull. The court reasoned that under the recording statute (section 695.01 F.S.A.), judgment liens attach only to the debtor's actual interest in the property and protect only creditors without notice; here, recorded documents referencing the agreement for deed provided sufficient constructive notice to the judgment creditor, and principles of equitable conversion further limited the vendor's attachable interest. The court clarified that the statute does not protect all creditors but only those without notice, and it adhered to this result on rehearing.

property

This case was a tort suit arising from an automobile accident in which the plaintiff sued co-defendants Carl Townsend and Howard Studstill. The trial court granted Studstill's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the claims against him based on evidence that he had sold the vehicle before the accident. On appeal, the Florida Supreme Court reversed that dismissal. The court held that conflicting affidavits and records from the Motor Vehicle Commissioner created a genuine issue of material fact about vehicle ownership, which under Common Law Rule 43(c) precluded summary judgment as a matter of law.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case concerned a dispute between a lessor and lessee over whether a 1942 lease for an undetermined term had expired. The lease ran for the duration of World War II plus six months after the final treaty of peace was signed, and the lessor sought a declaratory judgment that the term had ended following the 1945 Japanese surrender and later formal actions ending the war. The lessee maintained that the lease would not expire until six months after peace treaties were signed with all Axis nations. The trial court granted summary judgment to the lessor, and the Florida Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that the lease had expired based on the 1945 cessation of hostilities, congressional resolutions and presidential proclamations terminating the war, and peace treaties with Italy and Japan along with contractual agreements regarding Germany.

propertybusiness & regulatory

This case involved a challenge by the grandchildren and executor of Mary Hike's estate to two deeds conveying her real property to her son Michael Hike and his wife, which were recorded the day of her death; the plaintiffs sought cancellation on grounds of forgery, fraud, or undue influence. The Supreme Court of Florida reversed the chancellor's decree that had denied relief, holding that the deeds should be cancelled and an accounting ordered. The court reasoned that Michael, who had long served as his illiterate and infirm mother's interpreter and business manager, stood in a fiduciary relationship that imposed a duty of full disclosure regarding the deeds' effect, and his failure to ensure she understood the documents constituted fraud equivalent to undue influence.

propertyfamily lawprocedure

The case involved a merchant who collected sales taxes from customers, kept the funds separate, and sought to enjoin the sheriff from enforcing payment of those taxes after they were stolen during burglaries along with the merchant's own money. The trial court dismissed the suit on the defendant's motion, but the Florida Supreme Court reversed that decision. The court reasoned that the sales tax is levied on the purchaser, with the merchant acting as an involuntary trustee required to collect and remit the funds, and that such a trustee is not personally liable for theft losses if the funds were kept separate and the trustee exercised the care of a prudent person. The court noted that the statute requires the merchant to collect the tax but does not impose liability on the merchant for losses beyond the merchant's control when due care is shown.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

This case is an appeal in a mortgage dispute revisiting a prior appellate ruling on credits for rental income from mortgaged properties against the debt owed by the mortgagors. The court determines that its earlier assumption of full possession by the mortgagee at $200 monthly rental value was incorrect, as the master's report showed limited possession of nine houses for only part of the period from 1931 to 1938, with actual collections and a reasonable $100 monthly credit after allowing for the mortgagors' occupancy and income needs. Citing authority that appellate courts may correct their own prior errors, the court adjusts the accounting and remands for entry of a final decree consistent with these findings.

propertyprocedure

The case concerned a dispute among the three adult children of Willie Jones over Lot 5, which her 1941 will devised to one son, Paul Jones; after probate and distribution according to the will, daughter Pauline Neibergall claimed the lot was homestead property not subject to devise and that she owned an undivided one-third interest. The chancellor ruled the lot was homestead and vested each child with a one-third interest, and Paul Jones appealed. The appellate court held that principles of equitable election could apply because the will reflected an intent for equal division among the children and Pauline had accepted other benefits under the will, potentially requiring her to surrender any homestead claim, but remanded the case for the chancellor to consider those principles and take further evidence.

family lawproperty

The case concerns whether a trial court chancellor properly followed the 'law of the case' on remand after an earlier appeal in an injunction action brought by Frank Graessle against the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills. The Florida Supreme Court had previously denied certiorari review of an interlocutory order striking portions of the town's answer but later reversed the chancellor on appeal with respect to that same order. On remand the chancellor vacated the final decree but declined to fully amend the February 1946 interlocutory order to conform to the appellate ruling. The court held that denial of certiorari does not establish the law of the case and that the chancellor was required to modify the stricken-answer order to match the prior appellate decision. It therefore granted certiorari, quashed the August 1948 order in relevant part, and directed entry of a conforming order together with a new deadline for taking testimony.

procedure

The case concerned the standards for annexing land into the City of Oakland Park and defining municipal boundaries. The court determined that only land susceptible to municipal benefits, bearing a direct relationship to the existing community, and dedicated to urban rather than rural use may be included. It reasoned that cities exist to provide cooperative services to residents, so corporate limits should align with the community's natural scope without unreasonably extending them or incorporating land solely for tax revenue.

propertytaxes

This case concerned a dispute over the contents of a safety deposit box containing bonds, claimed by Ruth Lowry as the recipient of an inter vivos gift from decedent Dick Willard Paul and by the estate administrator as assets belonging to the estate. The trial court ruled for the administrator, finding that although delivery of the bonds occurred, the decedent's intent was for the gift to take effect only upon his death. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that a valid inter vivos gift had been completed because the requisite intent and delivery coincided when the bonds were placed in the box titled in Lowry's name, with both parties having access. The court reasoned that the donor's later access and clipping of coupons did not negate the completed gift, as title had passed at the time of delivery, supported by clear evidence from the donee and her mother.

property