Robert M. Haverfield

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.

taxespropertyprocedure

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.

business & regulatoryproperty

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.

criminal lawprocedureguns

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.

proceduretorts & liabilityhealthcare

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.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

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.

business & regulatorypropertytorts & liability

This case involved the State of Florida appealing a trial court order that suppressed a firearm and cocaine seized during the defendant's arrest for carrying a concealed firearm and drug possession. The trial court had ruled there was no probable cause because officers saw part of the gun through a small gap in the defendant's purse. The appellate court reversed, holding that a firearm may be partially visible yet still qualify as concealed under Florida Statute 790.001(2) if it is hidden from the ordinary sight of another person. The court distinguished prior precedents involving more obvious exposure and emphasized that the statute's language permits concealment from most observers even if visible to someone in close proximity.

criminal lawguns

This case involved an appeal by Sandra Schiller Page from a final judgment dissolving her three-year marriage to Michel Douglas Page, which denied her request for alimony, awarded her no attorney's fees, and set child support for their minor son at $40 per week. The core dispute centered on whether the trial court had properly calculated the husband's ability to pay support by overlooking a spendthrift trust established for him by his father, which generated about $17,000 in annual income and allowed broad discretionary distributions. The appellate court held that the trust constituted an available asset that the trial judge should have considered in assessing the husband's financial capacity, reversing the child support award and remanding for reconsideration while affirming the denial of alimony and fees based on additional record findings and lack of abuse of discretion.

family law

This case involved a personal injury claim by Sonja Scavella against Dade County after a county vehicle struck her car. The trial court dismissed the complaint because it failed to allege compliance with the county code's 60-day notice requirement for tort claims. The appellate court reversed the dismissal, holding that the county ordinance conflicted with and was invalid under the state statute Section 768.28(6), which provides a three-year period for presenting claims against government entities. The court reasoned that under the Florida Constitution's Home Rule Amendment, local ordinances cannot conflict with general state laws, and the shorter notice period directly contradicted the state-granted timeframe.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involved a negligence claim by plaintiff Mary Gaidymowicz against defendant Winn-Dixie Stores after she slipped and fell on liquid detergent while shopping in one of its aisles. The trial court granted the store's motion for a directed verdict at the close of plaintiff's evidence, and the appellate court affirmed that ruling. The court reasoned that the evidence failed to establish actual notice because the store had only about one minute to respond after being informed of the spill, and it likewise failed to show constructive notice because there was insufficient proof of how long the condition had existed before the fall. The record also contained no evidence that the store or its employees had created the hazardous condition. Accordingly, the judgment for the defendant was affirmed.

torts & liability

In Fulka v. Florida Commercial Banks, Inc., the plaintiff sued the defendant bank for conversion after it paid two checks on forged endorsements made by a third party, Okum, to whom she had directed the checks be sent for potential investment purposes. The trial court granted the bank's motion for involuntary dismissal at the close of the plaintiff's case, finding that Fulka had ratified the forgeries. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Fulka's conduct after learning of the forgeries—specifically her lack of objection and willingness to let Okum retain the funds during ongoing negotiations—constituted ratification under UCC Section 673.3-404, making the bank's payments effective as if authorized. The court reasoned that her actions could only be explained as an election to treat the unauthorized acts as authorized, and she later pursued the bank only after Okum disappeared with the money.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

In JH v. State, a juvenile appealed an adjudication of delinquency for robbery after he was found to have aided and abetted another person who grabbed a victim's purse on a bus bench. The court reversed the adjudication and remanded with directions to discharge the juvenile, concluding that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of guilt. The facts showed the juvenile was present at the scene and fled afterward but took no active part in the robbery and made no statements indicating prior knowledge or intent. The court held that this circumstantial evidence failed to prove the required intent to participate in the crime, as mere presence and flight do not exclude a reasonable hypothesis of innocence under established precedents on aiding and abetting.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Robert Barnason's appeal from his conviction for second degree murder after a jury trial. Barnason first contended that Blacks and Latins were underrepresented on the grand jury that indicted him, relying on equal protection principles from Castaneda v. Partida, but the court held he lacked standing because he was not a member of those groups. On his second claim, Barnason argued that his confession to police in Vermont should have been suppressed as the product of psychological coercion despite Miranda warnings, but the court found the statement voluntary because it followed full advisements and waivers without force, promises, or threats. The court affirmed the judgment and sentence, rejecting both arguments.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

In Gellman v. State, the defendant Alfred Gellman was convicted of ten counts of grand larceny involving the theft of automobiles from North American Marketing. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed the convictions, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the necessary element of felonious intent. The court reasoned that when intent is proven by circumstantial evidence, it must be inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence, and here the evidence showed Gellman obtained consent from company managers he believed had authority and did not claim personal ownership of the vehicles.

criminal law

The case involved a defendant who pled nolo contendere to a marijuana possession charge after Dade County officers seized the contraband from his luggage at Miami International Airport following a consent search. He appealed the denial of his motion to suppress, arguing that his consent was tainted by an allegedly unlawful initial stop in the airport concourse. The trial court found that the defendant had been advised of his right to refuse the search and that his consent was freely and voluntarily given without taint from any prior police action. The appellate court affirmed the denial of the motion without addressing whether the stop was improper, ruling that the advisement of rights broke any potential connection to prior illegality and supported the voluntariness of the consent under established precedent.

criminal lawprocedure

In Hicks v. State, the defendant was convicted by a jury of involuntary sexual battery by threatening to use physical force likely to cause serious personal injury and sentenced to thirty years in prison. The Florida Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's rulings on the defendant's competency to stand trial, denial of a mistrial motion, sufficiency of evidence regarding the level of force, and denial of a lesser-included assault instruction. However, the court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial on the ground that the jury was improperly instructed on an offense involving threats, which was not charged in the information (which alleged actual force) and did not qualify as a lesser-included offense under any of the recognized categories from Brown v. State. The court noted that the sexual battery statute is not structured as a degree crime, so the conviction was for an uncharged offense.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved an appeal by Jose Emilio Reigosa from a trial court order for involuntary hospitalization under Florida's Baker Act, specifically Section 394.467, Florida Statutes. The District Court of Appeal reversed the order, finding that while the appellant was mentally ill, the state failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he posed a danger to himself or others or lacked the capacity to survive in freedom with assistance from family or friends. The court reasoned that mental illness alone does not justify depriving an individual of liberty if they can manage outside of hospitalization, citing U.S. Supreme Court precedent in O'Connor v. Donaldson and related Florida cases, and noted the absence of any exploration of less restrictive alternatives in the record. The matter was remanded for consideration of other treatment options and alternatives to involuntary commitment.

civil rightsprocedure