Ralph Fredericks, a Dade County property owner, filed a complaint seeking to invalidate the 1978 preliminary tax assessment rolls and enjoin their approval by the state Department of Revenue, claiming they contained unequal assessments in violation of the Florida Constitution. The circuit court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, and the District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that Fredericks lacked standing because he failed to allege a special injury distinct from other taxpayers and had not exhausted available administrative remedies such as petitioning the Property Appraisal Adjustment Board. The court further noted that the requested injunction was moot since the rolls had already been approved and would disrupt essential public revenue collection.
Daniel Tepper borrowed $30,000 from Chase Manhattan Bank in 1972, securing the loans with approximately $60,000 in pledged common stock. As the stock's value declined toward the loan balance and eventually to zero, Chase sued Tepper for the remaining debt of about $29,000; Tepper counterclaimed, alleging the bank failed to exercise reasonable care under Florida Statute 679.9-207 by not liquidating the collateral when requested. The trial court entered judgment for Chase on both its claim and the counterclaim. The appellate court affirmed, holding that a secured party's duty regarding collateral is limited to physical preservation and does not extend to maintaining market value, that evidence showed Tepper never directed a sale, and that the promissory note granted Chase discretion but no obligation to sell the stock.
In State v. Williams, the State of Florida appealed from a trial court order suppressing a firearm seized from the defendant after a police officer, acting on a tip about a possible gun in a car, ordered the occupants out of an already stationary vehicle. The District Court of Appeal reversed the suppression order. The court held that the officer's command was justified because it involved only a minimal intrusion on liberty and was supported by concerns for officer safety in the presence of a reported firearm, even without the level of tip reliability needed to justify an investigative stop. The decision relied on the distinction drawn in Pennsylvania v. Mimms between ordering occupants out of a stopped car and more significant seizures.
The case concerned a medical malpractice action in which plaintiffs obtained a $125,000 verdict against Mercy Hospital. The hospital moved post-verdict to limit its liability to $100,000 under the Medical Malpractice Reform Act after proving compliance with the statute's conditions, and the trial court initially granted the motion while directing the excess to the Florida Patient's Compensation Fund. After the Fund objected that it had not been joined as a party, the court reinstated the full judgment against the hospital. The appellate court reversed, ruling that plaintiffs bear the burden of joining the Fund when seeking recovery over $100,000 and that the statutory limitation may be enforced after verdict upon proof of compliance without needing to be pled as an affirmative defense beforehand.
The case involved a condominium association seeking to foreclose a lien against the developer-unit owner for unpaid maintenance assessments under Florida statute. The developer raised an affirmative defense based on an exemption during the 'Developers' Maintenance Period' as provided in the recorded Declaration of Condominium, and the trial court granted summary judgment in its favor while clarifying that the ruling did not bar other potential claims. The appellate court reversed, holding that the pleadings created a genuine issue of material fact regarding the developer's compliance with the maintenance obligations in the declaration, which the affidavits did not resolve. The court also noted that even if summary judgment were appropriate, the proper procedure would allow amendment of the complaint rather than barring unpleaded claims. A concurring opinion suggested the contractual exemption conflicted with the governing statute and should be stricken.
This case involved property owners suing insurance agents and a mortgage servicer for damages after their fire-damaged property claim was denied, alleging negligent failure to notify them of policy cancellation and to procure replacement coverage. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, which the appellate court affirmed. The court reasoned that mailing the cancellation notice to the insured's address was legally sufficient notice, precluding claims of non-receipt, and that the agents had no duty to obtain replacement insurance because their role ended after initially procuring the policy and no general agency relationship existed with the owners.
